Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

           
            Jez Turner - the nation is a lifeboat

Senscreen: “What are your thoughts regarding nationalists today [...] groups like National Action, even London Forum’s Jez Turner? They seem quite fixated on the Jews to an extent that, it seems to be harming our efforts, I think.”  Nick Griffin: “Yes, I think it does.”

Particularly as I was the instigator of the original phase of skepticism with regard to “Giacomo Vallone”, with critical remarks in regard to the positions he espoused in an interview with “Dana Antiochus” at Renegade Broadcasting, it is relevant to weigh-in on this matter. While that exchange quickly exposed him in a lowly and amateurish sock-puppetting effort at dividing Europeans against each other, the combination of that amateurishness and the obvious anti-racial nature of his position caused me to not take him, or his associated “European Knights Project”, too seriously. Still, his motives were of the worst kind. It has more serious implications as that project has germinated into controversial engagement with prominent ranks of White advocacy.

Is he the same person as Jack Sen? Well, both Sen and Vallone are associated with the European Knights Project. That’s enough for me to dismiss them both. That is why I will only belatedly confirm together with you as to whether or not it is indeed the case that they are one and the same; though a cursory comparison of Sen and Vallone discussions seem to indicate one identity, we know enough about both of them already to dismiss them.

My run-in with Giacomo Vallone wasn’t the first time that I had to take serious issue with a guest at another network - I took issue with Mark Dyal at Counter-Currents, and I still believe that I was right to do that as well: The thanks I got for that was being banned from Counter-Currents (oh well). Mark Dyal showed up as a guest of Dana Antiochus with the same kind of bullshit and I had another run-in with him there: Renegade should have appreciated that bit of critique also. However, I’ve also had reservations about Dana Antiochus - though I might be unfair to him. While I tried to be friends with Renegade, as you’ll see, they turned out to be too right-wing in the end.

I tell you this - that Metzger is right about right-wingers.

They are disingenuous and/or naive and their tentosphere is always ripe for infiltration.

Anyway, the scandal in the tentosphere now is not only to see Giacomo Vallone as a fraud who has made his way into conversation with White Nationalism, but that he’s actually the same person as Jack Sen - also having made his way into conversation with WN.

I was repulsed by Giacomo Vallone for a number of reasons from the onset, but he and his “European Knights Project” not only managed to get interviews with Renegade et al., but notably with Professor MacDonald. MacDonald is a bit too open to those with advanced academic pedigrees (Vallone claims to have graduated Princeton) and demeanor and a bit too closed to those without that. But that’s another matter and not a major point here; MacDonald is a wonderful scholar despite sometimes not being the best judge of character.

In general, it is right-wingishness and desperation for social prosthesis to compensate for their anti-social positions that creates this vulnerability; a tentosphere trap that Jews maintain - a key objective being to keep us as right-wingers and “THE Left” as the enemy.

Now then, I was a bit skeptical (and couldn’t be bothered since he is out of the ballpark) about the possibility that Vallone was the same person as Sen. Nevertheless, I already had sufficient evidence that Vallone and The European Knights Project are bad news: promoting civic nationalism, promoting black and mixed race people (e.g., “part black people are OK”) and for some reason, inciting strident hatred between Germans and Poles; and apparently anybody and Poles; not only that, but using sock-puppets to instigate that divisiveness.

There was no reason to doubt that his dealings with White Nationalism were disingenuous and it was disappointing that MacDonald, et al., would entertain him. Mike Delaney also spoke with Vallone not long ago - an interview posted by Anglin - but these latter two are middle brow right-wingers, so their rubbing elbows with Vallone did not pique my attention in the sense that one of “ours” was being infiltrated. I would be quite happy for the Daily Stormer to crash and burn. It deserves to.

Then Jack Sen came onto the radar screen of WN, appearing at Jez Turner’s London Forum and on Kevin MacDonald’s site. These are people that I like, even if their right-wingishness causes them problems. I even posted the talk Sen gave to London Forum here at Majorityrights - it was about UKIP being controlled opposition, infiltrated by Jewish interests and so on. That didn’t raise red flags for me - if he, KM and Jez suddenly liked each other, it seemed that he might indeed be a guy coming to his senses. What was curious, however, was his association with The European Knights Project, and Vallone, as I already knew that they were colossal bullshit.

Still, I’m not regularly following the goings-on of every right-winger as I already have their perfidy conceptually circumscribed. I might look at what they are up to, as they are engaged on the same turf, consider what is useful and reject what is not; but I’m not letting them dictate my terms, any more than I’d let Jews do it. So, if they want to rub elbows with Giacomo Vallone and the European Knights Project, it’s their ship that’s going down. I advise White advocates not to be right-wingers, but that’s all I can do. KM, Greg Johnson and the rest of those among what I’ve taken to calling the tentosphere have tended to double-down in their position that “The Left” is the enemy.

Matt Heimbach is also cooperating with Sen and The European Knights Project - it seems as if there might be a corollary there, probably unbeknownst to Heimbach, to his being banned from The U.K. Sen was so disappointed about the ban?

Coming back to the show that has taken center ring for now, it is clear that “Giacomo Vallone” is bad news, but is he also the same person as Jack Sen? That really would be something as we will see in a moment by some of the implications.

But even if they are not the same person, the very fact that Sen would be associated with Vallone and the The European Knights Project is damning enough.

Lets set out the thread beneath the 2013 interview of Giacomo Vallone by Dana Antiochus at Renegade.

If it’s Jack Sen doing this sock puppetry then that really would be something. We’ll come to what Jack Sen might be up to after I set out this thread where I started the fight which initiated the awareness that Giacomo Vallone might be something more negative than just an ignorant newby. I begin with the first comment and before long, you’ll see what will be shown to be Vallone using sock puppets to instigate German-Polish animus.

Renegade, Dana Antiochus interviews Giacomo Vallone, 14 Oct 2013

Comments

DanielS
2 years 5 months ago

Giacomo Vallone’s remarks are not only tactless to the cause of mutual cooperation of European nationalism, but wrong..

READ MORE...

Sometimes I notice stories that are so awful that I almost think it’s some kind of joke, before I realise that it’s actually serious.

Here’s one such example of this:

Daily Mail, ‘Militant teachers demand schools stop promoting ‘British values’ as it makes children from other cultures feel inferior’, 28 Mar 2016:

That moment when memes meet reality.

• Guidelines want to encourage children to appreciate British values
• But teachers reject the move, which they say is linked to colonialism
• Critics have accused teaching unions of waging ‘ideological war’

Teachers are demanding that schools stop promoting ‘fundamental British values’ over claims it could make children think other cultures are inferior.

The National Union of Teachers said telling children about the country’s democracy, law and traditions could encourage ‘cultural supremacy’ and urged a new focus on ‘international human rights’ instead.

Under government guidelines, which are aimed at tackling extremism in the wake of the Trojan Horse scandal, children must be taught about being a British citizen as well as tolerance other faiths and lifestyles.

However, union leaders said the term was demeaning to other cultures ‘particularly in the context of multicultural schools and the wider picture of migration’.

Delegates passed a motion in favour of campaigning to scrap it during the NUT annual conference in Brighton today.

Christopher Denson, an NUT representative from Coventry, said: ‘We need to fight to reject this notion of British values, to fight for notions of human values and human rights.

‘We have to stand together across communities to bring down barriers, bring down borders, to say no to Islamophobia, no to anti-Semitism, no to fascism and any form of racism.’

The motion said that migrants make a ‘huge economic, political and social contribution’ to the country and that public services and businesses would ‘face severe difficulties’ without them.

It criticised the government for only taking in a ‘minute fraction’ of refugees and vowed to campaign for ‘policies that welcome’ them to the country.

The union agreed to ‘gather and collate’ teaching materials on migrants and refugees for members to use in classrooms from now on.

Mr Denson said he disliked using the term ‘fundamental British values’ in his classroom when many of his pupils had ancestry in countries which had encountered British colonialism.

He said: ‘The inherent cultural supremacism in that term is both unnecessary and unacceptable.

‘And seen with the Prevent agenda, it belies the most thinly veiled racism and a conscious effort to divide communities.’

He added: ‘It’s our duty to push real anti-racist work in all schools. And that doesn’t mean talk of tolerating other’s views, but genuine, inclusive anti-racist work.’

He said he had requested a week of themed assemblies every year in his school, with topics including apartheid and the rise of Islamophobia ‘in the context of anti-Semitism in the 1930s’.

‘This year we focussed on the migrant crisis in Calais, the Mediterranean and beyond,’ he added.

‘We organised a politics day for Year 8s [aged 12 to 13] in the week before Easter.

‘They had a day to form a political party in their tutor groups to come up with a manifesto, film a broadcast, and make banners and take part in a debate.

‘Apart from the quality of the work, the other thing that really made my proud was that every single tutor group had as a policy, ‘refugees welcome, open the borders’.

‘We need to be pushing at every level for anti-racism to be in the core curriculum for every child.’

Many of the activists at the conference said they had been to migrant camps over the channel to take food and provisions.

Christine Blower, general secretary of the NUT said: ‘Schools and teachers play a key role in welcoming migrant and refugee children and young people to this country, and supporting their progress within schools.

‘The NUT condemns the Government’s inadequate response to the current migrant situation, which has exacerbated the suffering for so many, including school-age children and young people.

‘The NUT has produced a guide to Welcoming Refugee Children to your School and has a dedicated section on its website for teaching resources which have been provided by teachers for teachers, on the issue.

‘The NUT will continue to work with Show Racism the Red Card, Hope Not Hate and others, to campaign for Government policies that welcome migrants and refugees to this country. The NUT will also continue to press for anti-racism work to be enshrined within the curriculum of all schools.’

The requirement on schools to teach fundamental British values was introduced in 2014 in a bid to crack down on extremism in schools.

It followed the Trojan Horse scandal, in which state schools in Birmingham were infiltrated by hardliners who tried to impose an Islamic agenda.

Ofsted, the schools regulator, has been penalising schools which do not sufficiently show that they are promoting British values.

Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: ‘Teachers should not be playing the role of fifth columnists in the ideological war currently being fought over our national identity and our national sovereignty.

‘Teaching children that British values are part of “cultural supremacism” will, at best, make them feel guilty about being British and, at worst, radicalise them in order to ‘make up’ for the sins of their fathers.

‘If one wishes to destroy a nation and build a “brave new world” you begin by indoctrinating and brainwashing the children.

‘This process of ‘re-education’ has started some years ago in our schools and we are, now, seeing its consequences in the suppression of free speech on our university campuses.

‘The notion of ‘value relativism’ - that all views are equally valid - has reached saturation point in our schools.

‘In many classrooms this has led to the views of terrorists being given equal weigh to those of the victim of terrorism. Against this background the latest motions from the NUT come as no surprise, at all.’

The Department for Education has been contacted for comment.

I’m sure that the Department for Education will be just as speechless as I am right now.

My record on political soothsaying is by no means perfect.  But tonight, for the first time since the Tory triumph in the General Election last May, I am starting to feel optimistic for a Leave triumph in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, which we now know will take place on June 23rd.  The arguments for Remain have already been rehearsed and written off as Project Fear.  They will not grow stronger with repetition.  All the positive noises, all the energy and excitement, the populism, the passion, the patriotism belong to Leave.  I have been amazed to see the freedom and frankness with which even hitherto rigidly loyal journalists at the Telegraph and the Mail have, almost without exception, derided Cameron’s so-called “deal” with the other 27 member states and declared for Leave.  It is said that up to half of the Tory parliamentary party will campaign for Leave, an unknown number of them mindful only that victory for this great cause will very likely remove Cameron from office and put Boris Johnson in his place.  But that is but a small detail of the huge change - a genuine metapolitical shift - which will be triggered by a Leave victory.  Let us just consider that for a moment.

The European Union is a project for the elites.  It is one of the principal engines of globalism, and it is immensely ambitious as such.  It offers a vision of an eventual multiracial, non-democratic unitary state concerned to expand to the eastern and southern borders of Russia, into Turkey and the Levant, North Africa (via the Barcelona Process), and, in time, across the Sahara and into the rest of the African continent.  All this is a matter of record.  But none of it would be remotely open to consideration were it not for the four grand, overlapping developments in the politics of the West in the late 20th century: the triumph of Capital over the command economy; that of political internationalism over nationalism; that of elitism over democracy; that of business and banking over peoples and populism.  These four triumphs winnowed national politics in the West, leaving us with the machine politician, the career politician; and his economically neoliberal and socially neo-Marxist, identikit parties; and ushered in an era of corruption, cynicism and betrayal.

Not unnaturally, this model of power politics has come under attack in every one of the European democracies.  In the UK, although nationalism has failed to lay a glove on it, euroscepticism has not.  True, UKIP could not break through with Westminster seats last May.  But David Cameron was forced to write into his party’s election manifesto a promise that, if successful, a Conservative government would hold a simple in-out referendum on EU membership by the end of next year.  At the time of the election the polls were very tight, and doubtless Cameron expected, at best, to be back in Downing Street with support from the Liberal Democrats.  They, of course, would never sanction any kind of challenge to their beloved project in nation destroying.  In the event the LibDems collapsed, Labour failed miserably, and Cameron won a most unexpected majority.  But ... he was now lumbered with that manifesto promise.  Plainly, he and his advisers thought they would have little difficulty in repeating the success of Project Fear in the Scottish IndyRef.  After all, who would remember Cameron’s Bloomberg speech, in which he had talked of a deep reform of the institutions of the European Union and of the UK’s relationship with it.  Nobody. They’ll all just vote for the status quo ... for what they know, won’t they?  Simple.

But now it’s starting to look like change is coming on 23rd June.  The return to independence of the UK will deliver a mighty blow to the process of ever greater union, energising dissent throughout the Union; ramping up costs for the other contributor member states, of which I believe only five or six will be left; and showing once again that the people do not want what the elites want, but still love and value their nation states and long to preserve them as independent and whole, functioning entities. With Schengen almost dead now, the euro in permanent crisis, the European economies seemingly permanently enfeebled, and the second largest economy negotiating its departure from the Union for good, the credibility of an EU elite which insists that the project must be advanced with ever more speed and determination will be tested and will be found wanting.  The Union could already be fatally wounded.  It might take years to die or it might happen with the dispatch that attended the collapse of communism in the east in 1989.

For nationalists this is a highly significant moment.  The pendulum has surely begun its long, stately swing back towards our politics.  We are in no way ready for what will come.

Guess which one of these is applicable to Colin Liddell.

The situation

It is said that one does not always have the luxury of being able to choose where one is sent to fight. What first started out as a criticism carried out by Colin Liddell at the Alternative-Right against Andrew Anglin’s Daily Stormer, has morphed into something completely different, because of one line—one truly breathtaking sentence fragment—that Liddell tried to slide past the readers:

Colin Liddell / Alternative-Right, ‘Joining the Dots on Andrew Anglin’, 08 Nov 2015 (emphasis added):

As for the palatability of Streicher-esque anti-Semitism, it is certainly palatable for many White Nationalists – indeed in-itself it hardly bothers me as history is full of unsavoury characters and I rather like history – but for other Whites, not to mention those Jews who might want to identify as Whites and help our cause (and there are some), it is certainly a different story.

Amazing. Apparently, Colin Liddell is okay with allowing the Jews to form the intellectual equivalent of a forward operating base which would of course be geared entirely toward sabotage, behind the lines of ethno-nationalist movements.

It’s one of the most breathtaking things I’ve ever seen from a European ethno-nationalist, ever.

Now, Majorityrights contributors don’t like the Daily Stormer, and our platform differs significantly. I am not defending the Daily Stormer, I have no interest in that, since I disagree with them on almost everything. However, for Colin Liddell to say that there are Jews out there who want to identify as whites and ‘help’, that is a truly stunning statement. In reality, there are no Jewish groups that have any interest in helping European ethno-nationalists. That is a phenomenon which absolutely does not exist anywhere.

Why should any ethno-nationalist want to give space for Jews to enter a movement that they have been historically hostile toward and are hostile toward even today? It’s impossible to understand it. Everyone has criticisms of the Daily Stormer and negative comments to make about the viability of Andrew Anglin’s approach, but if the criticism is coming from an angle that is beneficial to the Jewish lobby, then that cannot and should not be accepted.

Excuses, excuses

Many people, including Colin Liddell himself apparently believe that Jews in Europe can be courted as allies because of a perception that the Jews would be antagonistic toward the influx of Muslims and the threat of radical Islam that accompanies it. Here at Majorityrights we take the threat of the Islamisation of Europe very seriously and see it as one of the major problems of the era, a generational conflict that will continue.

However, we do not believe that the Jews can be a real ally in that conflict.

Why do we not believe that? It’s because the Jewish position is one where they would like to avoid having terrorists menacing them in their neighbourhoods in Europe, but Jewish civic groups also have no problem whatsoever balancing their concern about that against their other concern which is to avoid having an environment where a single culture predominates in the continent.

See here:

World Jewish Congress, ‘Jewish and Muslim leaders urge European Union heads not to pander to extreme-right’, 30 May 2011 (emphasis added):

In Brussels, leaders of Islamic and Jewish communities from several European countries today presented a joint declaration to the presidents of the three main European Union institutions. Ahead of a meeting of European religious leaders representing all major faiths in Europe, Bosnian Grand Mufti Mustafa Ceric and Brussels Chief Rabbi Albert Guigui handed the document on behalf of the 33 signatories to Commission President José Manuel Barroso, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy.

The declaration stresses that “Jews and Muslims live side-by-side in every European country and our two communities are important components of Europe’s religious, cultural and social tapestry. Both Muslims and Jews have deep roots and historical experience on this continent.” It raises concern about “increasing manifestations of Islamophobia (anti-Muslim bigotry) and anti-Semitism in countries across Europe.”

The joint declaration goes on to say: “Bigotry against any Jew or any Muslim is an attack on all Muslims and all Jews. We are united in our belief in the dignity of all peoples” and urges “all Europeans of conscience to put a stop to any group that espouses racist or xenophobic ideologies long before they are in a position to gain legislative or other power. We must never allow anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia or racism to become respectable in today’s Europe. In that regard, we call upon all political leaders not to pander to these groups by echoing their rhetoric.”

The signatories also declared: “We remember together the horrors that took place on this continent in the 1940s - a campaign of mass murder, unique in history, which resulted in the annihilation of one third of world Jewry in the Holocaust. That atrocity and others, such as the mass killing of Muslim civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the 1990s, resulted from the triumph of racist and xenophobic ideologies that demonized those that they targeted.”

This Europe-wide interfaith initiative – the first of its kind – was set in motion last December with the first Gathering of European Muslim and Jewish Leaders in Brussels. It is modelled on a similar cooperative effort in the United States organized by the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding. Co-sponsors are the European Jewish Congress, the FFEU, the Muslim Jewish Conference the World Council of Muslims for Interfaith Relations and the World Jewish Congress.

What kind of activities might be necessary in order to make sure that Muslims and Jews would both end up on the same page in that regard? They would have to schedule some kind of symposiums in which the Jewish cultural critics would brief their Muslim counterparts on what works against Europeans and what does not work, and the Jews would have to begin some kind of outreach to so-called European Muslims so that an understanding could be reached, right?

Well, here’s an example of that:

International Council of Jewish Women, ‘2nd European Muslim-Jewish Symposium’, 05 Sep 2012 (emphasis added):

[...]

BEST PRACTICES: A EUROPEAN JEWISH MUSLIM DIALOGUE
Jewish as well as Muslim Authorities from Serbia, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Sweden were heard. Several speakers explained the efficiency of their strategies to fight extremism. In Germany where many neo-Nazis groups are violent, the Jews will help the (Turks) Muslims to be heard. They speak out together to defend their rights especially on the important subjects of circumcision, ritual slaughtering, at the government. They want to be sure that their children go through the right path. Their relations as well as their cooperation are excellent and they want to make it official. In United Kingdom, where anti-Muslim bigotry is strong, the extreme right aggravates tensions in promoting hatred and violence in the Muslim districts. Jews will enhance the role of the Muslim righteous who saved Jews during the Holocaust; A conference of British Imams and Rabbis work together productively with the ministries on the field.

The most remarkable step greeted by the participants was the case story of the creation by Rabbi Michel Serfaty of Amitié Judéo Musulmane de France with his partners and his Muslim co-chair Scherazade Zerouala for the Paris district: the bus of Friendship between Jews and Muslims has since 2007 crisscrossed the French towns and suburbs with local press conferences. The most efficient means to fight against discriminations and prejudices are Jews and Muslims involved to speak out together and “SAY NO TO HATRED”. Ignorance, fear and contempt breed violence, and that is the way to face it. This action carried on for 9 years, going on round France 8 times, with 10 people, and 15 sub-branches in the country was a challenge: mostly to build a united front to make a correct presentation of the Jew and the Muslim in our work with children and their mothers.

[...]

Jewish lobby groups are triangulating, they are positioning themselves so that in the case where Muslim groups become the largest share of all ethno-religious minority groups in the European Union, they would be ready for that scenario, and could survive in it.

Jews and Muslims are right now in ‘the season of twinning’, and what a time for them to have chosen to do that! See here:

Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, ‘FFEU’s 8th Annual Global Season of Twinning’, 01 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

In the face of escalating sectarian violence and increasing expressions of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry across North America, Europe and around the world, thousands of Muslims and Jews will be coming together in scores of cities around the globe to declare: We Refuse to Be Enemies.

We Refuse to be Enemies is the theme of the 8th Annual Season of Twinning, which every November and December brings together Muslims and Jews - and people of other faiths as well - to hold joint events focused on educating communities about one other, working together on behalf of people in need and standing together against bigotry.

The Season of Twinning officially kicks-off on Sunday, November 1 with an Interfaith rally in Trenton, NJ, to be followed by events in Washington, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Brussels, Tel Aviv Rabat, Morocco, and scores of other cities in nearly 20 countries around the world. There have already been several events associated with the Season of Twinning over the past several weeks, including an inspiring Interfaith Peace Walk in Melbourne, Australia and a Surfers for Peace aquatic manifestation by Jewish and Muslim surfers off the beach in Biarritz, France.

The Season of Twinning was initiated in 2008 by the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding (FFEU) - a New York-based nonprofit organization dedicated to building a global movement of Muslims and Jews focused on strengthening ties between our communities.

“In the face of multiple crises now roiling Muslims and Jews in the Middle East and around the world and of increasing efforts by demagogues and extremists to incite our communities against each other, it is more critical than ever that Muslims and Jews come out in public to say ‘We Refuse to Be Enemies,’” said FFEU President Rabbi Marc Schneier. “We can agree to disagree respectfully on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while resolving to build ties of communication and cooperation for the betterment of both communities and the larger communities in which we live side by side.”

[...]

Quelle surprise! The Jews want to have an amicable relationship with the Muslims. They want to explore the possibility of continuing to undermine the European Union together, while they leave the disagreement about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Levant.

Anyone who understands the strategies that have been used by Jews when dealing with Muslims in the past, should actually not be surprised by any of this. This kind of political manoeuvring has happened in the past:

Jewish History, ‘710 - 719’ (emphasis added):

711 July 19, TARIK IBN ZIYAD (Spain)
A Moslem general. He defeated King Roderick, the last of the Visigoth kings, at the Battle of Rio Barbate (Guadalete) near Xeres de la Frontera. The Jews backed [Tarik ibn Zayid] in his battles. After each city was conquered (Cordova, Granada, Malaga), Jews were often given positions of safeguarding Moslem interests. One of his generals, Kaula al Yahudi, had many Jews under his command.

712 March, TOLEDO (Spain)
The Jewish inhabitants opened the gates for the Moslem invaders under Tarik ibn Zayid marking the end of Visigothic rule in Spain and the beginning of 150 years of peace. Thus began what was known as the Golden Age of Spain. The Iberian caliphate was independent of Baghdad and encouraged the flowering of Spanish-Jewish culture at the same time that it was being suppressed by the Baghdad caliphate.

‘150 years of peace’. Also known as ‘150 years Arab Muslims raping and killing the Europeans’.

Why do the Jews seek a situation where one culture cannot dominate? Why do they want to flood your countries with hostile migrants? The answer is less complicated than you might think:

Rabbi Doug Kahn / Jweekly, ‘The wisdom of Earl Raab — at 90’, 26 Mar 2009 (emphasis added):

When Earl Raab served as executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, he posted in his office an article citing a study that concluded that cigar smokers have a longer life expectancy than non-smokers.

One might wonder about the credibility of the study — but Earl turns 90 next week. His cigar-smoking days are behind him, and the Underwood Noiseless typewriter, on which he banged out hundreds of articles and uncommon wisdom for this paper, is in mothballs.

But Earl and his fertile mind continue to go strong.

Although he retired more than 20 years ago, his influence endures. A man of great humility, who claimed to be the national ping pong champion of the Galapagos Islands during World War II, Earl shaped the field of Jewish community relations nationally.

His genius was to recognize in San Francisco an extraordinary laboratory for studying and shaping the Jewish community at large — which he wrote about in an October 1950 piece for Commentary magazine. He had come to San Francisco on assignment from his and Kassie’s farm in Maine and decided never to leave.

In the “From the American Scene” column, Earl wrote a piece titled “There’s No City Like San Francisco.” In it, he wrote: “There are 55,000 Jews in San Francisco, and not even the historic traces of a ghetto. There is a Jewish community that has been called, with reason, the wealthiest, per capita, in the country. There is at the same time a startling poverty of ant-Semitic tradition. San Francisco, for cities of its size, is the nation’s ‘white spot’ of anti-Jewish prejudice… So far as the city and its institutions are concerned, the Jew is a first-class citizen. It may well be that he can live in San Francisco with a greater degree of personal dignity than in any other large city in the country.”

Raabisms will long endure at S.F.-based JCRC, among them: “A certain kind of America” (the idea that American Jews and other minorities are most secure when democratic institutions are strong) and “An educable moment” (Earl’s way of explaining why a bad thing happens to a good community and how to turn it into an opportunity).

[...]

In 1993 Earl Raab also wrote:

Earl Raab / San Francisco Jewish Bulletin, 23 Jul 1993:

We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

That is a positive feedback loop. As the level of heterogeneity increases, so increases the adherence to constraints against ‘bigotry’ for the sake of civil concordance under liberalism. Those constraints then make it more difficult for anyone to make arguments in favour of taking action against further increases in heterogeneity, which then results in a ‘requirement’ for more constraints against ‘bigotry’, and so on.

The same plan is on the agenda for Europe. It’s crucial for everyone to understand that this is what their intention is. There are no compromises or negotiations that can be had with the Jews. It is what it is.

Only pretending to be retarded

Later on, a torrent of criticism was poured in Liddell’s direction from Daily Stormer and from every other angle, because despite all the differences that may exist between the strands of ethno-nationalist thought in the North Atlantic, most people seem to agree that the Jews are not to be underestimated.

Colin Liddell reacted by effectively claiming that he was only pretending to be retarded, and that they were allegedly trying to troll the Daily Stormer by partially imitating its writing style and extreme rhetoric.

See here:

Colin Liddell / Alternative-Right, ‘White Surviv(irl) or Auschwitz of the Internet?’, 11 Nov 2015 (emphasis added):

First off, let’s deal with my previous article, as it managed to trick most people. It was—in case you hadn’t realized—a deferential tribute to the actual style of The Daily Stormer.

This came off as particularly hollow in the context of the Jewish Question, given that when I asked Colin Liddell about whether he still stood by his earlier statements on alliances with Jews, he said that he still stood by those statements, as you can see from the comments sections.

So it was not a pretence of any sort. It’s more like Liddell’s follow-up post was a form of damage control after he had made a spectacular misstep and didn’t want to back down from it.

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents however seems to have taken the claim of pretence at face value, without addressing the Jewish Question, and so he responded to Liddell, saying:

Greg Johnson, ‘White Surviv(irl) or Auschwitz of the Internet?’, Disqus comment 2353921213, 11 Nov 2015 18:37:

Well I’m relieved. I took your last article as in earnest and regarded it as a serious lapse by an otherwise sound writer, not as a parody of Anglin himself.

This is really surprising to me. Was he not aware of what Liddell was saying just earlier? The things that Liddell had said, are really 180 degrees contrary to the clearly-articulated and laudable stances that I had come to associate with Johnson. For example, a while ago, Greg Johnson ran this really good article at Counter-Currents:

Greg Johnson / Current-Currents, ‘Reframing the Jewish Question’, 27 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

[...]

Some nationalists pursue these questions, but others choose to abstain, merely advocating ethnonationalism but not touching the “J.Q.”

I wish to suggest that this framing of the Jewish question is entirely wrong. The Jewish question is not something distinct from ethnonationalism. It is not a separate, higher-order, entirely optional set of questions from which ethnonationalists can recuse themselves. On the contrary, the Jewish question is a simple, straightforward application of the basic principle of ethnonationalism.

If ethnonationalism calls for the replacement of multicultural societies with monocultural ones, then Jews, as a distinct people, belong in their own homeland and not scattered among other nations. Thus if England is to be English, Sweden to be Swedish, Ireland to be Irish, alien populations need to be repatriated to their own homelands, Jews included. That is the ethnonationalist answer to the Jewish question.

[...]

That is exactly the correct stance there.

But that is exactly the opposite of what Colin Liddell was calling for on 08 Nov 2015. Since Colin Liddell thinks that Jews should be part of European ethno-nationalist groups, whereas Greg Johnson clearly visualises a future in which Jews would not be inside the European continent. Quite clearly Johnson does not believe that Jews should be part of European ethno-nationalist groups, or he would not be able to come up with such an opinion.

To repeat, the reason that Greg Johnson is able to conceptualise a future in which Jews are not in Europe, is because he does not see them as part of the European ethno-nationalist advocacy group.

How then can Johnson be okay with Liddell, given that from Johnson’s perspective, Colin Liddell would be doing ethno-nationalism precisely wrong? This looks like a clear contradiction.

In fact, Johnson went so far as to ban the commenter UH from being able to post at Counter-Currents, when UH made arguments that were quite similar to those made by Colin Liddell.

Those arguments that were made by the commenter UH, were rebutted by the commenters Verlis and Theodore, here, here, and here.

The need for consistency

The Alternative-Right has a big tent. Their big tent is completely incoherent, because it contains a whole array of people who don’t agree with each other on core issues and whose outlooks are totally irreconcilable with each other.

Majorityrights has the correct platform for the advocacy of European peoples, and their regional autonomy. It formulated this platform by firstly considering the diverse opinions of ethno-nationalists. Secondly, after a process of argumentation an authentic theory emerged, which is known as left-nationalism or national-syndicalism. Step three is to equip European peoples with these ideas which are necessary to facilitate a transition toward true ethnostates and to enter into sustainable alliances within regional frameworks.

Having an actual platform and consistently communicating that platform, is more important than trying to create the largest possible tent. The events of the past week only throw the truth of that observation into stark relief.

Gaels were expropriated from the land between 1800 and 1830.

What is going on?

Much has been said in recent weeks about a man named Peter Sutherland. Sutherland is the United Nations Special Representative on migration, and he is an international businessman and former Attorney General of Ireland who has served in a variety of business and political roles. He was appointed to the European Commission in 1985 and had responsibility for competition policy. He was the Chairman of AIB (Allied Irish Banks) from 1989 until 1993. He was non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International until June 2015. In 2010, he was appointed co-chair of an Experts Group, to report on the priority actions to be taken to stave off protectionism and to boost global trade.

Sutherland is also keenly pro-European, which doesn’t sound like a bad thing until you realise what he means by that. A person would think that it’s pretty simple, after all, when talking about the ‘European Union’, the word ‘European’ is literally in the name. But no, Sutherland is pro-European, or ‘a Europhile’, in the sense that he supports the institutions of the European Union, but he does not support the ethnic genetic interests of those who live under those institutions.

Sutherland is a person who believes that the Arab Spring should have been considered as a chance to begin ‘weaving together’ Europe with North Africa and the Middle East, population-wise. What he of course means in practice is not—not ever—a colonisation of North Africa and the Middle East by Europeans, but rather, an invitation for literally unlimited migration from North Africa and the Middle East into the European Union to displace Europeans.

Objectively speaking, that is the expropriation of European peoples from their own lands, it is a displacement. Sutherland however entreats Europeans to think of it from a humanitarian and empathetic point of view. For example, it was Peter Sutherland who described the makeshift refugee camps in Calais, as ‘an indictment on society’, and asked the British and French governments to do more to assist the Middle Eastern and North African migrants.

Previously, profiteering

For the Sutherland family name, there is a long history of humanitarian and empathetic points of view being expressed by its members, when behind the hand-wringing and the appeals to a universal morality, behind the cloak of respectability and quasi-aristocratic pretensions, lurks the dagger of the most vicious blood-treason and abject profiteering which can only be expected from business-people of their calibre—a tendency which is by no means diminished but rather is reinforced by their Christian identity.

It was in January 1853, that the Stafford House Assembly of Ladies issued its call to their counterparts in North America, to ask them to consider the plight of black people in the Southern states of the United States, who had been enslaved for so long and were, in their view, in need of sympathy. They were consciousness-raising, making a call to action, and so on. That was a declaration that took place when Stafford House was under the presidency of the Duchess of Sutherland, who—much as it was in fashion then as it is in fashion now—was giving an object lesson on how easy it always is for liberals to show concern for people thousands of miles away, while ignoring the suffering of their own people close by—particularly when that suffering is caused by their own ‘humanitarian’ hand.

The whole history of the primitive accumulation that has led to the appearance of the wealth and prestige of the name Sutherland, and of other names of that type from Scotland and Ireland, is really in fact a history of the expropriation of the Gael people from their own lands, and their destruction at the hands of blood-traitors.

A quick sketch of history will be needed in order for things to become clear. In the 1100s, when the Danelaw was encroaching onto Scotland, the resistance came from the ‘Great Man of Sutherland’, a progenitor whose clan had defended him from all enemies, foreign and domestic, Scottish or Danish. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which installed the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau as King, due to the economic changes and the shift in political attitudes at the time, the internecine fighting among Gaels become less frequent, and at the same time, the propensity for Anglo-Dutch wars to erupt was reduced to zero. These things may not be the only factors, but they may comprise part of the reasons for why London was able to take the time to better integrate the Gael clans into the British military establishment, to incentivise stability by inducing these ostensibly different forms of social organisation to mutually support each other in Scotland.

The clan system of the Gaels was an array of social relations based around a progenitor and his or her progeny, which is to say, it is a relationship delimited by ties of blood and proximity. The district in which a clan operated was the land from which it gained its livelihood, much like how it was in what Marxists call ‘the Asiatic mode of production’, because it existed in a similar form in China, Japan, Korea, and various parts of South East Asia, in the pre-feudal era. It’s also comparable to the systems in some parts of the Americas before the appearance of Columbus.

It was basically a pre-feudal system of relations.

At the head of the clan was the progenitor’s family, which had a leader. The whole of the clan was like a system of blood-related family circles under them, the system could not be said to be a system of private property, because all the land was held as common land, under the military command of the progenitor. The progenitor could increase or decrease the allotment of land to subordinates as necessary, perhaps on a whim, or perhaps to fit a particular need. Under the family of the progenitor, were soldiers that administered regions, and under them were subalterns who managed towns and hamlets, and under all of them were the peasants who co-operated with the system in exchange for the benefits of a common defence perimeter and which was cemented by ties of blood.

Without an explicit legal system that could describe or allocate private property, it would be impossible to arbitrate land ownership in any way at that time. However, tradition and rank would mean that someone would have the largest influence, and the family of the progenitor, the leader in particular, would be the person who would ultimately have the final say on what would or would not be happening. This may seem benign at first, but when brought into interaction with a system that does have a concept of private property and the concept of a salary or a wage, it can potentially produce a deadly transformation which can lead to the clan’s destruction.

The destruction

As all services were gradually transformed into contract-based exchanges, the leader of the family of the progenitor began to increasingly take on the role of a landlord toward the soldiers, the soldiers in turn acting like farmers toward the peasants, and the peasants themselves becoming transformed into something like sharecroppers on the land that they used to call their own.

It would be in the early 1800s that the stab in the back was to come, and it came from one of the families of the progenitors in the form of the arbitrary and violent transformation of the clan’s common property into the private property of the leader, who could then dispose of it and its contents in any way that he or she desired, backed by government-sponsored force, which then resulted in armed conflict almost like a civil war.

Karl Marx—yes, seriously—explains with great accuracy what happened after that:

Karl Marx, Das Kapital Volume One, ‘Chapter Twenty-Seven: Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land’, 1867:

[...]

The advance made by the 18th century shows itself in this, that the law itself becomes now the instrument of the theft of the people’s land, although the large farmers make use of their little independent methods as well. [15] The parliamentary form of the robbery is that of Acts for enclosures of Commons, in other words, decrees by which the landlords grant themselves the people’s land as private property, decrees of expropriation of the people. Sir F. M. Eden refutes his own crafty special pleading, in which he tries to represent communal property as the private property of the great landlords who have taken the place of the feudal lords, when he, himself, demands a “general Act of Parliament for the enclosure of Commons” (admitting thereby that a parliamentary coup d’état is necessary for its transformation into private property), and moreover calls on the legislature for the indemnification for the expropriated poor. [16]

[...]

The stoical peace of mind with which the political economist regards the most shameless violation of the “sacred rights of property” and the grossest acts of violence to persons, as soon as they are necessary to lay the foundations of the capitalistic mode of production, is shown by Sir F. M. Eden, philanthropist and Tory to boot. The whole series of thefts, outrages, and popular misery, that accompanied the forcible expropriation of the people, from the last third of the 15th to the end of the 18th century, lead him merely to the comfortable conclusion: “The due proportion between arable land and pasture had to be established. During the whole of the 14th and the greater part of the 15th century, there was one acre of pasture to 2, 3, and even 4 of arable land. About the middle of the 16th century the proportion was changed of 2 acres of pasture to 2, later on, of 2 acres of pasture to one of arable, until at last the just proportion of 3 acres of pasture to one of arable land was attained.”

In the 19th century, the very memory of the connexion between the agricultural labourer and the communal property had, of course, vanished. To say nothing of more recent times, have the agricultural population received a farthing of compensation for the 3,511,770 acres of common land which between 1801 and 1831 were stolen from them and by parliamentary devices presented to the landlords by the landlords?

[...]

The last process of wholesale expropriation of the agricultural population from the soil is, finally, the so-called clearing of estates, i.e., the sweeping men off them. All the English methods hitherto considered culminated in “clearing.” As we saw in the picture of modern conditions given in a former chapter, where there are no more independent peasants to get rid of, the “clearing” of cottages begins; so that the agricultural labourers do not find on the soil cultivated by them even the spot necessary for their own housing. But what “clearing of estates” really and properly signifies, we learn only in the promised land of modern romance, the Highlands of Scotland. There the process is distinguished by its systematic character, by the magnitude of the scale on which it is carried out at one blow (in Ireland landlords have gone to the length of sweeping away several villages at once; in Scotland areas as large as German principalities are dealt with), finally by the peculiar form of property, under which the embezzled lands were held.

The Highland Celts were organised in clans, each of which was the owner of the land on which it was settled. The representative of the clan, its chief or “great man,” was only the titular owner of this property, just as the Queen of England is the titular owner of all the national soil. When the English government succeeded in suppressing the internecine wars of these “great men,” and their constant incursions into the Lowland plains, the chiefs of the clans by no means gave up their time-honored trade as robbers; they only changed its form. On their own authority they transformed their nominal right into a right of private property, and as this brought them into collision with their clansmen, resolved to drive them out by open force. “A king of England might as well claim to drive his subjects into the sea,” says Professor Newman. [25] This revolution, which began in Scotland after the last rising of the followers of the Pretender, can be followed through its first phases in the writings of Sir James Steuart [26] and James Anderson. [27] In the 18th century the hunted-out Gaels were forbidden to emigrate from the country, with a view to driving them by force to Glasgow and other manufacturing towns. [28]

As an example of the method [29] obtaining in the 19th century, the “clearing” made by the Duchess of Sutherland will suffice here. This person, well instructed in economy, resolved, on entering upon her government, to effect a radical cure, and to turn the whole country, whose population had already been, by earlier processes of the like kind, reduced to 15,000, into a sheep-walk. From 1814 to 1820 these 15,000 inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically hunted and rooted out. All their villages were destroyed and burnt, all their fields turned into pasturage. British soldiers enforced this eviction, and came to blows with the inhabitants. One old woman was burnt to death in the flames of the hut, which she refused to leave. Thus this fine lady appropriated 794,000 acres of land that had from time immemorial belonged to the clan. She assigned to the expelled inhabitants about 6,000 acres on the sea-shore — 2 acres per family. The 6,000 acres had until this time lain waste, and brought in no income to their owners. The Duchess, in the nobility of her heart, actually went so far as to let these at an average rent of 2s. 6d. per acre to the clansmen, who for centuries had shed their blood for her family.

The whole of the stolen clanland she divided into 29 great sheep farms, each inhabited by a single family, for the most part imported English farm-servants. In the year 1835 the 15,000 Gaels were already replaced by 131,000 sheep. The remnant of the aborigines flung on the sea-shore tried to live by catching fish. They became amphibious and lived, as an English author says, half on land and half on water, and withal only half on both. [30]

But the brave Gaels must expiate yet more bitterly their idolatry, romantic and of the mountains, for the “great men” of the clan. The smell of their fish rose to the noses of the great men. They scented some profit in it, and let the sea-shore to the great fishmongers of London. For the second time the Gaels were hunted out. [31]

There is nothing that I can add to that.

Nothing is new about what is happening now, compared to what was happening back then. Not only is the same kind of economic structure being used to carry out the destruction as was being used in the 1800s, but furthermore the very name of Sutherland has reappeared, it has reappeared as though to flaunt itself in the face of the people of the British Isles.

A new decision

Last time the great blood-traitors were able to take you down the path that they wanted—a whole ethnic group was effectively destroyed and scattered across the earth.

Now they come again, under the same names to re-invite you down the same path.

My question to all European peoples is this: Will you let them take you again?

Les armes de Satan c’est la croix de Lorraine, et c’est la même artère et c’est la même veine.

An invitation to debate

If a person browses to the TradYouth website, they will be greeted with a gigantic link to ‘the Orthodox Nationalist’, which is a page which blatantly promotes Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson.

Can the Traditionalist Youth Network explain why the blatantly Christian Fr. Johnson is a guiding influence for them?

And if a person reads through many of the articles being published by TradYouth and the Facebook timeline of its SoCal chapter, the influence of this individual and the body of tradition behind him is clear to see in their writing, because it flows through just about everything they write about.

On their ‘chapters’ page, they have the image of the ‘Christ-chan nun’ wearing a Christian cross, and the image carries the speech bubble, “Will you ‘Deus Vult’ for me?” That is a Christian battle cry from the Middle Ages. My response to their request is “Fuck No”.

The image I’ve inset in this post, and the alternative kind of cross contained in it, can be considered as a thematic counterpoint to theirs.

Before I began to write this article, I did consider sending the people at TradYouth an email privately to ask them about their logic and their behaviour. But then I realised that there is nothing that I would ask them in private that can’t also be asked in public, so I decided that they should be asked publicly for the sake of transparency.

There is also the fact that TradYouth and Majorityrights are not known for being particularly well-disposed toward each other in the first place, and that would have something to do with the fact that on one hand the TradYouth website is plastered with the symbols of Christian Orthodoxy and the sign of the Christian cross, whereas on the other hand here at Majorityrights we carry the logo of the Fleur de Lise which is the symbol of the Royal Secret whose meaning is the same as that of the Cross of Lorraine.

These are clearly not empty stylistic variations, but in fact represent a clear difference in philosophical and spiritual outlook which has manifested in design choices. TradYouth is pro-Christ. Majorityrights is explicitly anti-Christ and will remain so.

Why even ask for a debate, then?

The gulf of difference between our platforms should not be a reason for debates to be avoided. Nor should the fact that these are ‘religious issues’ be a reason to sideline them from discussion within an ethno-nationalist context. Many people in various ethno-nationalist groups have said that having frank and honest conversations about these things ‘should be avoided’ because they can be ‘divisive’. But in life, contradictions cannot really be papered over, they must be dealt with and resolved, and so we should see these differences as an opportunity for conversation rather than a reason for refusing to talk to each other.

Can anyone at TradYouth explain why it is that they think aligning themselves to Russian Orthodox Christianity is helpful to the peoples of Europe at this juncture in history? I would like to hear their explanations or their rationalisations for why they have chosen to endorse Christianity. Doing this openly would enable people to evaluate the arguments and choose for themselves.

As many of our readers may be aware, I criticise Christianity frequently, there’s a whole category for it.

However, there has been relatively little push-back. Christians and their supporters have been quiet. Almost too quiet. Conversation is needed so that ideas can be further explored.

I therefore would like to invite Matthew Heimbach or Matt Parrot to make contact with me, for the purpose of having an amicable interview and debate on the subject of religion.

Of course, I would make no pretence about my intentions, I would hope that I can convince them of the total and abject poverty of the Christian vision of humans and of the world, that Christianity lacks any kind of European core to it, and that it should be jettisoned as soon as possible. I would hope to have a debate in which all doors are barred in advance. The exits marked with excuses such as “it is tradition” and “people feel comfortable in churches” would be barred in advance.

I would also be happy to discuss the content of the book written by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, ‘For My Legionaries’, with them. Codreanu and the Iron Guard were, despite the appearance of being Orthodox Christians, persons who seem to have managed to cloak pagan and anti-Christian ideas under what appeared at first glance to be a ‘Christian’ symbolism. This was certainly in the 1930s a very tactically astute way of going about their operations.

From reading the book, one can see that Codreanu in fact instructs his followers to openly defy the Abrahamic god for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the Romanian ethnic group and its sovereignty over its own civic space. Under the dogma of Christianity, this in fact would make them effectively non-Christian. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to say that Codreanu’s dismissal of the striving for the heavenly afterlife, and Codreanu’s veneration of a figure that they referred to as ‘the Archangel Michael’ who was responsible for such instructions, was in fact thematically akin to the figure of Lucifer as described by John Milton in ‘Paradise Lost’.

Just as Lucifer in ‘Paradise Lost’ is depicted as asserting that it is better to rule on earth and rule in the underworld than to chase the ephemeral promise of some crumbs from the table in a supposed heaven, so too does Codreanu assert that it is better to defend the nation and be consigned to the coldness of the outer darkness, which is to say, ‘hell’, than it is to be a good Christian and let one’s nation be thoroughly destroyed by liberals and Jews for the mere promise of ‘heaven’.

I would challenge Matthew Heimbach and Matt Parrot to consider that, and evaluate the situation honestly.

Codreanu’s actually-manifest religious views, his laudable dedication to his people was no different than that of the pre-Christian Brythonic pagan religions of the British Isles who believed that everyone goes to one place, the underworld, and that certain geographical sites allowed for close communication with the ancestors who went there, such as perhaps Stonehenge or Newgrange. That is also not very different from those found in Japanese Shintoism, where there is no heavenly reward, there is only the Dark World which stands behind this world. The boundary between this world and the world we can’t see would be thinnest at certain locations such as in the forest at Yomotsu Hirasaka, and many other places around the globe.

With those kind of thoughts, choosing martyrdom when placed into battle is only logical, as there is nothing to lose.

Old framework, new framework

For a while now, pro-Christians have attempted to use Codreanu’s legacy as an excuse to push their false promises of the afterlife and their false morality.

I posit that Codreanu’s legacy should not be understood as an expression of Christianity, and that Codreanu’s politics should instead be interpreted as a vibrant and noteworthy expression of paganism and Luciferianism, which rises against the tyranny of the Judeo-Christian god, and which rises against the flabby pacifistic ideas of Jesus of Nazareth.

People ought to fight against having all of humanity digested and turned into the shit of multi-racial ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ in the melting-pot of the fleshy bowels of Christ.

In 1930, being tactful about that outlook and cloaking one’s real anti-Christian views, was politically astute given what the social environment was like. In 2015, with Christianity on a steep decline among pretty much everyone in the west in the 18-29 age cohort, I can see no reason whatsoever for why anyone would still be bothering to be Christian, unless they actually believed in Christian nonsense. There is certainly no political gain that can be extracted from such a pretence.

The demographic which Christian culturalists are trying to appeal to, are mostly a demographic who don’t even believe in Christianity in the first place. Christian culturalists are not only wasting everyone’s time, but also spreading Christian values, values which are deeply harmful to ethno-nationalism. If Europeans are moving away from Christianity, no one ought to be inflicting it onto them again. A move away from Christianity is the correct choice.

For anyone who may be rolling their eyes and thinking that this invitation is excessively provocative and radical, you should not regard this as an example of ‘Kumiko being edgy’. No, this idea of ‘pro-Christian vs. anti-Christian’ is a perspective which is thematically salient, because European society has had—broadly speaking—two modes of thought which have been placed in opposition to each other ever since the rise of Christianity.

The famous French poet Charles Pierre Péguy illustrates this in metaphor, which I will excerpt from:

Péguy oeuvres completes 06, page 291 (emphasis):

Les armes de Jésus c’est la croix de Lorraine,
Et le sang dans l’artère et le sang dans la veine,
Et la source de grâce et la claire fontaine;

The weapons of Jesus are the cross of Lorraine,
And the blood in the artery and the blood in the vein,
And the source of grace and the clear fountain;

Les armes de Satan c’est la croix de Lorraine,
Et c’est la même artère et c’est la même veine
Et c’est le même sang et la trouble fontaine;

The weapons of Satan are the cross of Lorraine,
And it’s the same artery and it’s the same vein
And it’s the same blood and the troubled fountain;

Les armes de Jésus c’est l’esclave et la reine
Et toute compagnie avec son capitaine
Et le double destin et la détresse humaine;

The weapons of Jesus are the servant and the queen
And every company with her captain
And the double destiny and the human distress;

Les armes de Satan c’est l’esclave et la reine
Et toute compagnie avec son capitaine
Et le même destin et la même déveine;

The weapons of Satan are the servant and the queen
And every company with her captain
And the same destiny and the same misfortune;

Les armes de Jésus c’est la mort et la vie,
C’est la rugueuse route incessamment gravie,
C’est l’âme jusqu’au ciel insolemment ravie;

The weapons of Jesus are death and life,
It’s the rugged road incessantly climbed,
It’s the soul up till heaven insolently exploited;

Les armes de Satan c’est la vie et la mort,
Le désir et la femme et les dés et le sort
Et le droit du plus dur et le droit du plus fort.

The weapons of Satan are life and death,
Desire, woman, dice and chance
And the right of the toughest and the right of the strongest.

The two divergent paths spring ‘from the same vein’, because it is a choice, a perpetually-existing conjuncture which is placed before people as to what they will fight for, and how they will live their life. Look at it socially.

All of a people’s original and beautiful traditions, along with its natural self-preserving behaviour, have been labelled as both ‘pagan’—a word which literally means ‘non-Christian’—and labelled as ‘satanic’—a word which literally means ‘adversarial [toward Jehovah]’. We live in a world where that dichotomy has been created due of the advent of Christianity.

If someone were to ask me whether I stand with Lucifer—who Christianity, Islam and Judaism would call ‘Satan’—the answer I would give to that question is of course ‘Yes, I stand with Lucifer, I stand with Satan’.

That would in fact be a logical statement, because whosoever takes up arms against Judaism, against Christendom and against Islam, is ipso facto ‘antisemitic’, ‘islamophobic’, ‘pro-pagan’ and ‘satanic’.

There’s nothing wrong with being ‘antisemitic’, ‘islamophobic’, ‘pro-pagan’ and ‘satanic’. There is no reason to bat an eyelid at such labelling.