[Majorityrights News] Sikorski on point Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 28 March 2025 18:08. [Majorityrights Central] Piece by peace Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 19 March 2025 08:46. [Majorityrights News] Shame in the Oval Office Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 01 March 2025 00:23. [Majorityrights News] A father and a just cause Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 February 2025 23:21. [Majorityrights Central] Into the authoritarian future Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 21 February 2025 12:51. [Majorityrights Central] On an image now lost: Part 2 Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 15 February 2025 14:21. [Majorityrights News] Richard Williamson, 8th March 1940 - 29th January 2025 Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 03 February 2025 10:30. [Majorityrights Central] Freedom’s actualisation and a debased coin: Part 2 Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 11 January 2025 01:08. [Majorityrights News] KP interview with James Gilmore, former diplomat and insider from first Trump administration Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 05 January 2025 00:35. [Majorityrights Central] Aletheia shakes free her golden locks at The Telegraph Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 04 January 2025 23:06. [Majorityrights News] Former Putin economic advisor on Putin’s global strategy Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 30 December 2024 15:40. [Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20. [Majorityrights News] Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 02 November 2024 22:56. [Majorityrights News] What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve? Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 21 September 2024 22:55. [Majorityrights Central] An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. [Majorityrights Central] Slaying The Dragon Posted by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. [Majorityrights Central] The legacy of Southport Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. [Majorityrights News] Farage only goes down on one knee. Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. [Majorityrights News] An educated Russian man in the street says his piece Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 19 June 2024 17:27. [Majorityrights Central] Freedom’s actualisation and a debased coin: Part 1 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 07 June 2024 10:53. [Majorityrights News] Computer say no Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. [Majorityrights News] Be it enacted by the people of the state of Oklahoma Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 27 April 2024 09:35. [Majorityrights Central] Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. [Majorityrights News] Moscow’s Bataclan Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. [Majorityrights News] Soren Renner Is Dead Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. [Majorityrights News] Collett sets the record straight Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. [Majorityrights Central] Patriotic Alternative given the black spot Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. [Majorityrights Central] On Spengler and the inevitable Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. [Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43. [Majorityrights News] A Polish analysis of Moscow’s real geopolitical interests and intent Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 06 February 2024 16:36. [Majorityrights Central] Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 24 January 2024 10:49. [Majorityrights News] Savage Sage, a corrective to Moscow’s flood of lies Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 12 January 2024 14:44. [Majorityrights Central] Twilight for the gods of complacency? Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. [Majorityrights Central] Milleniyule 2023 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 December 2023 13:11. Majorityrights Central > Category: European UnionIntroductionThis article is just a very condensed version of some observations that have been burning on my mind this week and which came up over tea and biscuits during conversations with some of my work colleagues. It may be edifying for European nationalists and regionalists, so I’ve chosen to make a short article about the subjects covered. People should feel free to ask me any questions they like in the comments section, if anyone would like a more expansive explanation about the concepts I’m trying—humorously but with serious intent—to illuminate here. The somewhat provocative phraseology I’m using here is quite deliberate and is used for a reason that will be explained later on in the article. Twilight of the Westphalian ModelWe are living a world that has progressed and changed significantly since the advent of industrial warfare. In the early 1900s, everything about warfare tended to be the resolution of international disputes through a state actor’s military personnel and machinery clashing in the spacial battlefield until someone was decisively defeated. Now, this is no longer the case, after the late 1900s and early 2000s, war increasingly has become a matter of non-state actors waging war against other non-state actors, and in the case where states of a Westphalian inspiration came into contradiction with these non-state actors, the Westphalian states’ objective usually was to find a settlement of the conflict that would satisfy the commercial and geostrategic needs of those nations. The battle also takes place in ‘hearts and minds’, getting hearts and minds on one’s side has become not just an optional extra, but in many cases can be a crucial and decisive element of strategy. The battle of ‘hearts and minds’ is happening in the case where you have to influence a ‘foreign’ population to co-operate with and support military operations that you are conducting inside their territory, or the case where you have to convince a ‘foreign’ population that your occupation of their territory is capable of providing safety and stability through effective counter-terrorism operations. Increasingly, these same needs apply within the North Atlantic states as well, because we are actually now in a new generation of warfare. This is 5th generation warfare, not 4th generation warfare now. The events which took place in France on 13 November 2015 were a stark sign of that transition between generations having taken place. ISIL’s attack on Paris was not just an attack against state infrastructure in an attempt to affect the French government’s policy preferences. It was not an attack that could be understood within the context of the Westphalian state model, or the world order that this model had given rise to. Instead, it was an attack against the Westphalian state model itself, and that is why the attackers chose the targets that they chose. They selected places that French people and the foreign residents of other culturally advanced populations would go to enjoy themselves. They chose to deliberately have amongst the assailants a mixture of people carrying Syrian passports alongside people who were second or third generation Muslim residents of European countries such as Belgium. By selecting the targets in the way that they did, they were announcing that it was a fight of one population against another, one social group against another, in their view, and their intent was to make this fact clear to everyone. We on the other side should not shy away from acknowledging that this is really how it is. They believe that there is a ‘global Ummah’, a community of Muslims unconstrained by national borders, who are trying to uphold and enforce the rules of the Abrahamic monotheistic god over ‘the Kaffir’ who are pagans (this includes people who adhere closely to bonds of blood, which Islamic doctrine considers to be part of ‘Jahiliyyah’), polytheists, atheists, and apostates. The rise of this kind of view, represents a rise of what is best described as ‘armed social movements’. Social movements have qualities that are distinct from that of traditional Westphalian state structures, even when they come to occupy the seats of power in a state. Armed social movements tend to have a cleanly defined ‘us vs. them’ world view, and the manifestation of state power which is filled by such movements, tends to be an outcome of battles fought in and against civil society, in the terrain of popular culture or through street battles or asymmetrical warfare. The manifestation of state power is not imposed from above, but rather, the manifestation of state power is a sign that the armed social movement has already triumphed among the population itself. The process is ‘bottom up’, rather than ‘top down’. Armed social movements fight against each other in the terrain of civil society and through popular culture, to determine who will ultimately capture state power in the long term future. We are an international ‘Satanic Alliance’?In light of all of the above, the epithet which the jihadists have labelled us with, the epithet ‘Satanic Alliance’ comes into play and is a gateway to understanding the fundamental issue presently facing western civilisation, as well as a method for coming to terms with it. On 01 November 2015, Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri published a sixteen minute video which spread across the Islamic world on social media and jihadist websites, calling for a unified Islamic front against the coalition of groups who are fighting against the imposition of Sharia law, which he described as forming a front against “the Satanic Alliance that attacks Islam”. In his video, he takes a tone toward ISIL which is one of coalition-building, as he is seeking to caution them on the dangers that come from infighting among the various jihadist groups. He doesn’t want ISIL, Jahbat Al-Nusra, and Ahrar Al-Sham to keep fighting against each other over their differences, rather he wants them to suspend their disagreements on who commands the jihadists (ie, Ayman Al-Zawahiri or Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi?) and how it should be expressed (ie, Islam faithful to the 8th century, or Islam adapted to the 21st century?) and to instead unite against “the Satanic Alliance”, and to “hone” their conduct so that they can convince the other Muslims that they “want to be ruled over by Sharia”. Whenever I hear these things, I always smile a little, because by saying things like that, they are drawing the lines very cleanly and obviously. However, within the west there is still a muddled feeling amongst the general population about this, which needs to be ironed out. We are and have been and hopefully will continue to be—objectively speaking—living in an increasingly ‘Satanic’ society, if you take the definition of what ‘Satanic’ means from the religious texts of the three Abrahamic religions. Look at what those three religions stand for, and then look at what we stand for and what we would like to see manifest, and you discover immediately that—as I’ve said before—we are a threat to the Abrahamic religions, we are their adversary. What does ‘Satan’ mean? It literally means ‘the adversary’. There are many important distinctions between the two sides, but the most important one in the context of the interests of the readers of Majorityrights is this one: THEM: Islam—much like Christianity and Judaism—is a religion that actively and aggressively promotes mass race-mixing. It promotes submission to a single god which asserts that it ‘created everything’ and also asserts that this material world is of no real consequence because ‘a test’ of loyalty and submission to the monotheistic god is all that matters. US: We as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists are opposed to mass race-mixing, because we believe instead in the crucial importance of preserving ties of blood and proximity. Without preserving those ties, it would be impossible for a human being to truly find themselves, without which it would be impossible for human societies to ascend Maslow’s hierarchy with the willpower, the intellectual liberty, and a culture advanced enough to promote the flourishing of the social processes that lead to an understanding of the pure and pristine true reality that existed in the time of the primordial era. Our will is projected into the material world, to shape it to our own form of ‘justice’, not the dictates of some Semitic desert god. These two views are irreconcilably and diametrically opposed, and always will be. Two camps: Make a decision, make a choiceAlthough some find it to be unsettling, the arrival of this amazing narrative brings clarity and doctrinal purity to a situation that previously seemed to lack it. Since 11 September 2001, the middle ground ought to have become entirely vulnerable to erosion. When the planes crashed into the World Trade Centre buildings in 2001, and when the bombs exploded on the trains in Madrid in 2003, and when the bombs exploded on the buses in London in 2005, and now in the wake of the migration crisis and the Paris attacks of 2015, all of these have painted and highlighted—in blood—the existence of two camps before humankind that everyone would have to choose between. On one hand, there would be ‘the camp of Islam’, a global Ummah which was disjointed and did not have a Caliphate to represent it at the time. They would be the forthright defenders of monotheism and transcendental values in a world where such a defence had been sliding out of fashion. This camp would also include their fellow travellers, and some opportunists. On the other hand, there would be ‘the Satanic Alliance’, a coalition of people who reject the philosophical basis of Abrahamic monotheism, and form a coalition to defend their material and intellectual interests. These people would struggle against Abrahamic monotheism for diverse reasons. This alliance would underpin the preservation of the beauty and freedom of native peoples everywhere and their ability to determine their own futures (ie, coinciding with the concept of a ‘DNA Nation’) in accordance with the tools—both genetic and memetic—handed down to them by their ancestors on the earth. Sometimes, unexpected mouths utter statements that are true. George W. Bush actually stumbled partially onto the truth of the existence of this paradigm when he said, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. Osama bin Laden also once said, “The world today is divided into two camps.” Both Bush and Bin Laden were essentially correct about that basic reality, although neither of them understood just how correct they were. All the different operations by the two camps have since served to expose the people who claimed to be ‘in the middle ground’ as being actually through their actions on one side or on the other side, whether they are conscious of it or not. The shrinking middle groundMany people on the so-called centre-right, and many so-called radical traditionalists and court ‘historians’ and court ‘scholars’ were immediately exposed by the terrorist attacks and by the wars, and by the mass migration crisis. All of those who rushed to make apologetics, excuses, and justifications for the Islamists prancing around in their midst, or else, made mealy-mouthed statements about how they ‘respected’ Islam or ‘shared traditional values with them’ and so ‘are internally conflicted on how to react’, or alternately, sought to allocate blame and condemnation onto the victims of Islamic terrorist attacks rather than onto the perpetrators, were all exposed. Some, such as the Jews and the Christians who are milling around among the ruling class in every western state, went so far as to actively campaign for more migrants when the mass migration and infiltration crisis began. By these actions, they revealed themselves to everyone. Even the most naive observer of political affairs can now be convinced that there really are only two camps. It is also worth mentioning that in fact, many conservatives of the traditionalist and civic nationalist sort, and almost all social democrats of every stripe, had always been in ‘the camp of Islam’ insofar as they refused to oppose mass migration from the Middle East and Africa, and they refused to criticise the fundamental basis of monotheism itself, restricting themselves only to criticising the methods of the so-called ‘radicals’. Those who walked in ignorance were simply unaware of this, because court ‘historians’ and court ‘scholars’ and the mainstream media had all portrayed them as being opposed, and as a result, their actual complicity with ‘the camp of Islam’ went unrecognised. As a result of this confusion, such persons and groups only appeared to be in the middle ground in the eyes of the ignorant and the uninformed. So it is only in the sense of the perception of the people, that the events since 11 September 2001 have ‘driven’ those people out of the middle ground. In reality they were never in it. It only appeared to be so. A prime example of this would be Angela Merkel and most of the Christian Democratic Union party in Germany. The CDU is firmly in ‘the camp of Islam’, and always has been, it was only in the eyes of the ignorant that it has appeared otherwise (eg, those who were fooled by the false dichotomy of ‘multiculturalism vs. integration’), until recently when it became openly apparent for all to see. And so the middle ground, and even the perception of there being a middle ground, can now begin to wither. Rather than whining about methods, such as who kills who in what kind of brutal way, we should begin talking about the purpose behind the conflict and what its philosophical and spiritual basis is, and then offer a choice. In other words, we need to get down to the fundamentals. Be confidentIf we, the apparent ‘Satanic Alliance’ can stand together and remain completely and ruthlessly consistent in our narrative and defend the attractiveness and beauty of our Promethean goals, then we can gently—when and where we can—push the dialogue which encourages people to make the choice to join such an ‘alliance’. In that sense, everything which has happened since 11 September 2001, should be seen not as a disorganised series of tragedies and inconveniences, but rather, as an opportunity, a springboard from which we as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists can jump forward and present—truthfully and with sincerity—the narratives and views of things like ‘the Satanic Alliance’ or ‘the DNA Nation’, ‘the dark side of the Enlightenment’, ‘post-modernity proper’, or ‘taking the kingdom of heaven by force’, or any other thought-form that is grounded in an absolute earthlyness of thought that we care to elucidate.
The Turkish airforce shot down a Russian Su-24M last week, and since that time, critical examination of Turkey has brought a number of issues that people had been warned about before to light in the media, which until now had been mostly ignored. I had intended to write an article at Majorityrights about this, but then I realised that the Independent was actually saying everything that I was going to write, so in the interest of saving time, I will just quote them verbatim:
This is relevant to two flashbacks from last year, to stories that were made available in Al-Monitor via Taraf:
And:
And more recently:
Of course, the weapons did not go to the Turkmens. The weapons on those trucks actually went to groups like the FSA 10th Coastal Brigade which has conducted operations in line with Jahbat Al-Nusra and Ahrar Al-Sham. It’s also reasonable to speculate that significant amounts of those supplies also found their way into the hands of ISIL. Turkey’s intense protectiveness about Russian interactions with their border, may have been due to the fact that they didn’t want the Russians to be able to do air interdiction against what was an ongoing logistics operation taking place across that border. It’s a depressingly ridiculous sequence of events which gives Russia the ability to create a media narrative about how ‘only Russia’ is ‘fighting the terrorists’ with real determination, because Turkey is a part of NATO and is basically embarrassing NATO with its duplicitous behaviour. There is a silver lining to these dark clouds, though. Up until just recently, Russia had been seeking to work with Turkey on the provision of oil and gas pipeline projects into Europe, which would have increased European dependence on Russian energy companies. Thanks to this sequence of events, Russia and Turkey are now at odds with each other, and Russia is seeking to suspend those projects and to place sanctions on Turkey. All of this has not worked out too badly. Not only has Turkey’s duplicity finally come to light in a way that makes it impossible for anyone in western governments to avoid dealing with it, but additionally the Russian government is now politically incapable of partnering with Turkey against the European Union’s geostrategic interests with regards to energy concerns, at least in the near term, as negotiations on the Turkish Stream pipeline project are suspended. This gives more time for the effects of the Iran deal to come into play, since Iran was able to enlist Russian assistance in the P5 negotiations to make the case for sanctions being removed, while at the same time positioning itself against Russia as an alternative energy supplier for Europe, which would be able to substitute its natural gas in place of Russia’s and increase the diversification of supply. This would in turn lessen Russia’s political influence in Europe. Iran’s infrastructure would not be ready to supply Europe in the near term, and so the near term quarrel between Russia and Turkey, gives the European Union more time to coordinate that infrastructure development with Iran, and potentially tilts the tables by making Russia appear less reliable as a supplier. From that perspective, all of this is a win for the North Atlantic. Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
How do you know when a set of principles is not exactly fit for purpose? When you have to opt out of them in order to not die:
A person might be tempted to laugh, and indeed I myself am laughing. But at the same time, you have to think soberly to yourself, “How many people had to die in order to reach this point?” Is it actually the case that European civil society is re-learning what ‘being in a conflict’ is about, the hard way? Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
![]() Events in France affect Germany. There’s only so long that an idiot can keep-on-keeping-on, until all sections of the more rational elements of the establishment begin to question that idiot’s ability to remain politically viable. We’ve all heard already about how the defence and security sector has found Germany to be a land of absurdity for quite a while now. But that alone is not enough to see someone removed from office. The preponderant political power in a liberal state is the haute-bourgoisie. Economic power precedes political power. This means that understanding the background financial and economic signals and the way that these signals interact with the overt political landscape, enables us to see an event developing from far off, and allows us to adjust our own tactics accordingly. The Paris attacks have been a nightmare for Merkel because it has awakened criticism not only from German people in the street, but also among opportunistic members of her own party who are seeing now that she is at the weakest she ever has been, and that now is a chance for them to mount a political challenge. But the success of that challenge, when it comes, depends on the acquiescence or at least the sign of a resigned inevitability from financial players who are the stakeholders in the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of Germany. The time when it would be politically expedient to remove Merkel, would be in December at the CDU conference, where someone would be able to demand that she should hand in her resignation, and twist her arm until she does. Who would be most likely to replace her in such a case? Most likely Wolfgang Schaeuble. So our big question is: How likely is it that Angela Merkel will be forced to resign in December and be replaced by Wolfgang Schaeuble? One way to find this out, would be to look at the macroeconomic stances of Merkel and Schaeuble, compare them, then watch and see how the ECB and the large players are behaving, to see if they are making any moves that would suggest that they don’t expect Merkel to still be there by the end of December. It’s known that Schaeuble is more of a tight-fisted politician than Merkel when it comes to certain aspects of economic policy—Schaeuble hates expansionary policies much more than Merkel does. And for those of you who thought that it wasn’t possible to hate expansionary policies more than Merkel, I have to tell you, it’s possible, Schaeuble does precisely that. On that issue, he is pretty depressing. Therefore, it stands to reason, that if you see Mario Draghi at the ECB suddenly deciding to rush through a lot of actions to carry out more expansionary economic policy (something which he certainly ought to do) within a time frame before the end of December, and that if you see big global economic stakeholders ‘forecasting’ interest rates that are even more subterranean than at present, along with ‘forecasting’ more quantitative easing, one of the factors motivating that choice could be that they are positioning themselves for a future in which Merkel is forced to resign. Why? Because it’s easier to carry out those actions before Schaeuble gets in. That way, when Schaeuble gets in, he would have to accept that it is already happening. So, let’s see what people are saying as of this Friday evening:
And:
And:
Of course, the situation in Germany is not the only reason why the ECB would take the actions that it is going to take, it was likely something that was always going to happen. But the time frame within which it is occurring and the reaction of market participants to that risk event, seems to indicate that a lot of people are paying attention to this. Look at the 3 week and 1 month Euro-dollar volatility term structure, and you can see that they are reacting to European risks and not just to the upcoming 16 December Federal Reserve meeting in the USA: Also, given that there are numerous arguments for why Mario Draghi did not have to take the earlier-described actions in the short term (one of those being the oil prices argument), and given that he is determined to do it anyway, it would indicate that it is an attempt to get out in front of Schaeuble so as to pre-emptively make it more difficult for Schaeuble to get his way on monetary policy, and it would therefore mean that it is possible to be confident that Merkel is going to be gone by the end of December. What does this mean for ethno-nationalists? Well, it means that it would probably be prudent to begin altering our rhetoric and policy suggestions with an eye toward a near-term future in which Merkel is not there. This will require some adjustments which would be best made sooner rather than later. We should be particularly vigilant against the idea that the removal of Merkel is a magical solution to all problems. Schaeuble’s disposition is one that presents a slightly altered set of problems to the European Union, and we would need to explore what those are ahead of time and be ready to criticise them when they come. There needs to be an urgent study of all facets of Wolfgang Schaeuble’s politics. He might be chancellor of Germany very soon. Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
![]() Guess which one of these is applicable to Colin Liddell. The situationIt 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:
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, excusesMany 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:
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:
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:
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:
‘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:
In 1993 Earl Raab also wrote:
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 retardedLater 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:
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:
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:
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 consistencyThe 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. Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
For any weary reader who needs a little cheer in these dark times here is a video of a speech by Zsolt Bayer, the Hungarian journalist, publicist, author, co-founder of the ruling party Fidesz, and friend of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. It was given in September to a meeting of patriots protesting the front cover of a Soros-funded magazine Magyar Narancs which pictured Orbán adorned with a Hitler moustache shaped in barbed wire. The speech itself is perhaps three-quarters honest, which is a definite step up from Orbán’s widely publicised and ritually deplored calls for the preservation of Christian culture and European “patterns of living”. Among other things it reveals that influential figures in Hungary, including Orbán himself I understand, are My thanks to Breitbart commenter Melissa Mészáros for the link. I might just add that Bayer’s stirring rhetoric encouraged someone named David Peppiatt to seek out a Hungarian-American blog which specialises in being nasty about Orbán. The usual one-sided war on liberal nonsense ensued.
![]() Yes, the North Atlantic was completely destroyed, but for a wonderful moment in time we had no Islamophobic comments on Facebook! There are few things in politics more fulfilling than seeing greed and fear—which are not ‘bad’ emotions, it’s all about context—combine to create genuinely good performance art, a kind of art that is a work of genuine originality. That’s how it is with the Facebook censorship story, it just gets better by the day. The law firm Jun Lawyers, which specialises in IT Law and is headed by Jun Chan-jo, has seen an opportunity for publicity and profit. It is going to be found through the fact that between Angela Merkel, Heiko Maas, Anetta Kahane, Eva-Maria Kirschsieper and Mark Zuckerberg, they have virtually no capability at all of actually policing all the ‘hate speech’ that now exists on Facebook due to the reaction of a sizeable number of German citizens to the migrant influx that Angela Merkel herself invited into Germany. The continued existence of ‘hate speech’ all over Facebook means that the liberal government is violating its own laws and its own constitution. Since Facebook is also possibly violating those same laws, and since none of them can do a single thing about it without installing something akin to the ‘Great Firewall of China’ or the ‘Great Keyword Filter of South Korea’ —except aimed at the all-pervasive ‘Far Right hate speech’ rather than say, ‘reactionaries’, or ‘Far Left Marxists’, or ‘anarchists’—Jun Lawyers can be sure that the German legal tangle is a gift that will keep on giving. The liberal government has effectively promised to win at whack-a-mole, has made it illegal to lose, and is now finding itself unable to stop losing. Now finding themselves trapped in a forest of the censorship laws of their own making which they are legally obligated to enforce, and with social media being used to propagate messages of ‘hate’ toward everyone and everything, the liberal-capitalist occupied German government is considering suing Facebook, the German court system is considering whether to find the German government to be in violation of its own constitution, while the Jun Lawyers firm is suing both the liberal government and Facebook simultaneously. I would urge all ethno-nationalists out there not to be angry with Jun Chan-jo. His name will appear a lot in the media going forward, but it is prudent to regard him as the ‘Gordon Gecko’ of IT Lawyers, and to take a tolerant stance toward him. I’ve heard some unfortunate stories about people sending him hateful emails and tweets which insult him on the basis of his Korean ethnicity and so on. Please do not do this to him. It’s just business, isn’t it? Jun Chan-jo should not be regarded with hatred, he should be regarded with love, because he’s just doing his job and he’s doing it very well. Let’s remember the relevant section of that famous speech that Gordon Gecko made in the 1987 film ‘Wall Street’:
The aggregate effect of the self-serving actions of Jun Chan-jo is that he’s basically calling the liberal government and Facebook on their own bluff and forcing them to try to follow through on their own laws. He’s performing the socially useful and totally logical function of holding the liberal government and the clique of Jews who own Facebook to account for the laws that they themselves committed to. But the government can’t comprehensively follow through on these laws, because it’s operationally impossible for them to police all of the things which are being said about Muslim migrants daily on social media in Germany. All the state apparatus can really do is strike a small number of ‘offenders’ randomly, and then when this proves ineffective, it turns on itself to play internal blame-games in response to legal challenges. Look for yourself at the circular firing-squad which has manifested:
The best thing that can happen is for this chaos to continue. It’s an unlimited and unwinnable censorship battle which the liberal-capitalist occupation government in Germany has plunged itself into. About 35 million migrants in total may be heading toward Europe, and Germany is refusing to permit political discussion of Angela Merkel’s monstrous open-doors policy to take place on the public political stage. So, the conversation persists on the internet, and then the liberal government chooses to include such conversation under the rubric of the enforcement of its ‘racial hatred’ censorship laws. If the liberal occupation government wants to adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward ‘hate speech’ and if they promise to follow through on that impossible task, then I give my warmest regards and a jaunty salute to anyone who is able to engage in culture-jamming or legal-jamming actions to put that ridiculous censorship system under stress. The liberal occupation government might as well be trying to censor discussion of the weather. To all the patriotic Germans out there, I encourage you to keep posting ‘offensive’ things, and to keep organising and engaging in street actions, and in so doing, keep jamming up the liberal censorship system. Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Page 8 of 16 | First Page | Previous Page | [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] | Next Page | Last Page |
|
![]() Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Piece by peace by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 19 March 2025 08:46. (View) Into the authoritarian future by Guessedworker on Friday, 21 February 2025 12:51. (View) On an image now lost: Part 2 by Guessedworker on Saturday, 15 February 2025 14:21. (View) — NEWS — Sikorski on point by Guessedworker on Friday, 28 March 2025 18:08. (View) Shame in the Oval Office by Guessedworker on Saturday, 01 March 2025 00:23. (View) A father and a just cause by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 February 2025 23:21. (View) CommentsGuessedworker commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Sun, 23 Mar 2025 16:04. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:34. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Sun, 23 Mar 2025 10:34. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Sun, 23 Mar 2025 10:14. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Sun, 23 Mar 2025 04:45. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Sun, 23 Mar 2025 00:11. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Sat, 22 Mar 2025 23:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Fri, 21 Mar 2025 23:15. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:20. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:13. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Piece by peace' on Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:54. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:43. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sun, 09 Mar 2025 14:47. (View) Manc commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sun, 09 Mar 2025 13:55. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sat, 08 Mar 2025 23:56. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sat, 08 Mar 2025 22:09. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sat, 08 Mar 2025 20:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sat, 08 Mar 2025 20:37. (View) Manc commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sat, 08 Mar 2025 20:22. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sat, 08 Mar 2025 18:32. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sat, 08 Mar 2025 16:07. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sat, 08 Mar 2025 15:18. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Sat, 08 Mar 2025 12:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Fri, 07 Mar 2025 16:33. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Fri, 07 Mar 2025 13:45. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Fri, 07 Mar 2025 12:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Fri, 07 Mar 2025 11:31. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:21. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:20. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Thu, 06 Mar 2025 23:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'A father and a just cause' on Thu, 06 Mar 2025 21:33. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Wed, 05 Mar 2025 23:00. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Wed, 05 Mar 2025 16:55. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Into the authoritarian future' on Tue, 04 Mar 2025 23:55. (View) ![]() ![]() |