Majorityrights Central > Category: Humour

The horror won’t end

It must be really difficult for Alt-Right ‘Big Tent’ proponents these days, especially since they declared war against reality and reality is systematically thrashing them.

Increasingly miserable Donald Trump supporters in the Alt-Right Big Tent may have been wondering whether Trump was going to take Fox News up on their idea for another debate that was supposed to happen next week between himself, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz.

Donald Trump believes that this would clash with his busy schedule:

The Hill, ‘Insider: Trump to skip GOP debate for pro-Israel conference’, 15 Mar 2016 (emphasis added):

Donald Trump will miss the final Republican presidential debate to address a major pro-Israel lobbying organization instead, according to an insider.

“Hearing that Trump secured a Monday night speaking slot at AIPAC conf. in D.C,” tweeted Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, referencing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“Also happening that night: [the] Republican debate in Salt Lake City,” he added, alluding to the 13th GOP presidential contest on March 21.

[...]

That Republican debate in Salt Lake City? Apparently it’s not happening after all:

The Hill, ‘Fox News cancels GOP debate after Trump backs out’, 16 Mar 2016 (emphasis added):

Fox News is canceling next week’s Republican presidential debate in Salt Lake City, Utah, after front-runner Donald Trump publicly backed out early Wednesday, followed by John Kasich.

“Ted Cruz has expressed a willingness to debate Trump or Kasich – or both. But obviously, there needs to be more than one participant,” Fox executive vice president Michael Clemente said in a statement.

Trump announced early Wednesday that he would not show up for the debate, saying there have been “enough” debates and noting he’d be speaking at a pro-Jewish rally on Monday.

Instead of appearing at the debate, Trump said he would be making a “major speech” at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, he announced Wednesday on “Fox and Friends.”

[...]

So basically, Fox News called for a television debate, and asked Donald Trump if he’d like to attend it. Trump declined, because he has what he perceives as better things to do already on his schedule, things such as kissing the backsides of the mendacious Jews at AIPAC.

No doubt, all television cameras will follow Donald Trump to AIPAC, because that’s where the ratings are, and then all of the people who have been enthusiastically promoting Donald Trump will get to see how many cringe-worthy pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish statements he can rattle off within the time that he has there.

Option one: Speaking bitterness

When Donald Trump first started his incoherent campaign, he created a space for ‘politically incorrect’ discussions in the public space.

The appearance of that space could have potentially been harnessed by American ethno-nationalist advocates and channelled away from Trump and toward ethno-nationalist causes. This could have been accomplished through sending people to Trump rallies to look for people who could be converted and drawn into ethno-nationalist activism, distributing flyers, speaking bitterness or consciousness raising, and so on. To accomplish that, ethno-nationalists in the United States would have needed to draw a hard line between themselves and Trump’s campaign, and would have needed to walk parallel to his campaign while simulataneously criticising it.

The opportunity to do this was completely squandered by them.

Option two: Being an idiot

Instead of doing that, Alt-Right players in actual reality chose to simply attach themselves to the Donald Trump campaign, make tweets on his behalf, act as an independent public relations arm for him, all while not challenging him on any of the big problems of his campaign.

They also chose to tell themselves nice stories about how everything that is wrong with Donald Trump is all part of some kind of 57-dimensional chess game. Trump’s daughter literally married to a Jew and incubating heirs for the Jew? Ivanka Trump’s womb is engaged in 57-dimensional chess, apparently, if Big Tenters are to be believed. Her womb is really complex and dynamic. Trump flip-flopping on the second amendment? It was ‘a different time’ back when he supported the so-called ‘Assault’ Weapons Ban, so that too is portrayed as 57-dimensional chess. Promises to support Israel stronger and harder than any candidate in the GOP? Chess again, supposedly. Literally has Jews as his advisers and lawyers? Allegedly it’s chess again. Insipidly idiotic protectionist anti-trade policies and tariffs? More excuses about how it’s about ‘fair’ trade, whatever that even means. Also, ‘chess’.

Cuck

It was almost like the Alt-Right Big Tent wanted to become Donald Trump’s girlfriend. And yet Donald Trump was never interested in that, and has never even so much as acknowledged them by name, because he’s too busy cuddling with the Jews. You know, those people who he’s been rubbing shoulders with his whole life because his career was launched in real estate development in New York City.

A key example of this is when someone like David Duke gives his support to Trump, and then Trump reacts by pretending not to know who Duke is, followed by all of the pro-Jewish pandering proceeding ahead full steam as before. Another example would be Kevin MacDonald saying that Donald Trump basically ‘knows exactly what he is doing’ as though some kind of chess game is going on, and then Donald Trump is meanwhile literally allowing Ivanka Trump to marry into Jewish bloodlines.

It’s in moments like that, when one can imagine that Donald Trump leans in close to the ear of people like Duke, or MacDonald, and softly whispers a single word: “Cuck”.

Jesus said, “I give to you this cracker, so that future generations will remember that I looked Hu-white to you.”

The rollercoaster won’t stop

No matter how much you might want to get off of this rollercoaster, by some twist of fate it just never seems to end. Here’s the latest development that Christians are bringing from (((Jesus of Nazareth’s))) mouth to your ears.

Jim Wallis, the founder of the Christian magazine Sojourners, thinks that Christianity has not done enough yet to destroy Europeans physically and psychologically, and so he has some advice which is sure to make you want to kill yourself:

The Oregonian, ‘White Christians need to repent for systemic racism, author says’, 17 Feb 2016:

Wallis is president and founder of the Christian magazine Sojourners and has served President Barack Obama as a spiritual advisor. He has authored 12 books as well as columns for The New York Times and The Washington Post.

His newest book, “America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America,” is an indictment of white Christian apathy and inaction towards systemic racism.

“The political and economic problems of race are ultimately rooted in a theological problem,” he writes.

Modern white Christians might not own slaves or even all walk to the other side of the street to avoid passing a young black man, but they do benefit from white privilege, he said, whether they’re aware of it or not.

“To benefit from oppression is to be responsible for changing it,” he writes.

Wallis will be in Portland early next week as part of his book tour, which he’s turned into a series of town halls by inviting faith leaders in each city to join him for a public conversation about racism. Wallis and local pastor Leroy Barber will speak at Powell’s City of Books at 7:30 p.m. Feb. 22.

Ahead of his visit, we talked to Wallis about a few major issues raised in the book. His responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Q: You argue that racism – not just personal feelings of hate, but allowance of systematic injustice – results from problematic theology. What theological misconception do you identify at the core of modern white churches that are apathetic or inactive with regards to race?

A: In Galatians, 3:28, it says there is no Jew or gentile, slave or free, male or female – we’re all one in Christ Jesus. If churches are just silos of people like each other, we’re really not doing what it we’re supposed to do. Martin Luther King Jr. called people of God the “beloved community.” We’re supposed to be the ones who are demonstrating a diverse “beloved community.” Our theology is supposed to trump our sociology.

If you don’t want to do that, you’d better go somewhere else. This community is all about braking down those barriers. If churches are just silos of people like each other, we’re really not doing what it was supposed to do.

[...]

Q: You call on white Christians to “die to whiteness,” saying that “whiteness” is an idol that separates white Christians from God. What does “dying to whiteness” mean?

A: Whiteness is a myth. Race was created as a social construct to justify oppression. How do we get our souls back? It’s an idolatry, really. Idols separate us from God.

Dying to whiteness means to be aware of white privilege. For example, I tell a story in the book about being a little league coach. Parents of my black players had to have “the talk” with their kids, and my white parents were clueless. It’s unacceptable that my kids’ classmates and teammates had to be told they couldn’t trust their law enforcement officers. That’s a problem for me and white parents, not just black parents.

[...]

Yes, you read that correctly, it says ‘dying to whiteness’. Really. This is a thing now.

‘Dying to whiteness’ is when white people decide not to recognise the existence of their own ethnic group, and as such become ontologically incapable of enunciating ideas about the defence of that ethnic group.

You can’t defend a thing that you don’t recognise as existing.

If this isn’t ‘white genocide’ then I don’t know what is. Given the present situation, how anyone anywhere could even be considering calling for more Europeans to join these institutions is something that is simply baffling to consider.

The rollercoaster continues rolling for its own sake

A lot of pro-Christians who like to fancy themselves as ethno-nationalists, tend to respond to this sort of article by trying desperately to trace out the history of a supposedly militant Christianity that once-upon-a-time defended the integrity of European ethnic groups. They seem to believe these legends are a suitable rebuttal to the reality which is playing out right in front of them today.

But history will not let them retreat into legends from the classical age. All of this must be understood as a process. Understanding the dialectic of structure and history will enable people to understand how the position of Christian institutions only seemed to move, but in fact they maintained an ‘immobile motion’ which kept them firmly in their place.

What do I mean by this?

The first priority of any expansionist ideological institution that operates on a subscription basis, is to fund itself and expand the number of people who are subscribing to its memes where possible. The second priority of such an institution is to manoeuvre itself in the market, so that it can comfortably keep ahead of global demographic trends.

The rollercoaster doesn’t care about you

In the past era, Christianity appeared to care about the fate of European societies and the cohesiveness of European population groups, because Europeans were the only societies that were furnishing soldiers which were willing to fight to perpetuate the existence of the church institutions, or to give such institutions access to more territories to recruit followers from, or to take populations away from doctrinal rivals, and so on.

As a testament to the success of that strategy, the main church institutions were able to survive into the modern era, and Christianity grew as a religion by following Europeans wherever they went on the planet.

In the present era, Christianity no longer has to care about the fate of European societies or the cohesiveness of European population groups, because the Christian institutions don’t actually need to parasitically extract wealth from European societies in order to exist anymore. They now have the prospect of taking advantage of the single fastest-growing demographic in the entire world, Africa. Africans are more willing to accept the Christian memes than anyone else is, and as such and an almost guaranteed revenue source for Christian institutions.

The fact that Christianity has within these last 100 years freed itself from the shackles of having to care about Europeans at all in any sense, is not a distortion of Christianity, but rather, the logical end result that it had always striven for. If the past era could be understood as a ‘Northern and Central European compromise’ which occurred after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and the loss of the food-basket territories of Egypt and Syria, the present era could be recognised as the fulfilment of the success of that compromise, since Christianity can now ‘go global’ once again and break that compromise, and it is doing so with gusto.

The accumulation of capital from land ownership, financial holdings, relationships with prosperous Northern and Central European states, and so on, is now being reinvested by Christian institutions into a full drive toward carrying out the actions necessary to position themselves to take advantage of the growing populations in Africa and other areas in the periphery.

Their number one priority did not change. It only seemed to change in the eyes of some people, and the only people who are perceiving a ‘change’, are those Europeans who in some kind of fatal conceit started to think that Christianity was somehow about them.

In fact, back then, Christianity was about the survival of Christianity and maintaining or expanding the wealth of its institutions. Now in the present day, Christianity is about the survival of Christianity and maintaining or expanding the wealth of its institutions.

See? No change.

Newsflash, Europeans: Christianity is not about you. It was never about you. Christianity is about perpetuating its own existence. It doesn’t care about you, and it never did. It is a religion that (((originated))) in the Middle East and Africa, and it is there to which it will demographically return. That Christian institutions are now pushing anti-racialist memes more fervently than they ever have before, is something which is simply inherent in the logic of events.

In a story that shows that Jewish-American lobbyists and journalists have very little self-awareness, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron thought that it would be a good idea to publish a story in which they made it appear that the US Government was violating some kind of agreement to not spy on ‘allies’, when the NSA monitored Netanyahu’s activities during the P5+1 negotiations with Iran.

The monitoring activities were carried out with the intention of discovering what Netanyahu’s views on the proposed deal were, and what his response to it going forward might be. This monitoring would have been approved by senior figures in the Obama administration, as well as the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.

But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former US officials said.

[...]

The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears [...] that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.

[...]

Of course, what neither of these persons mention in their article is that monitoring Netanyahu’s communications was both legal and necessary.

Monitoring what other world leaders are doing so that the United States can have good information from which to make policy decisions is literally the mission statement of the NSA. Furthermore, Israel has chosen to prefer a policy on Iran that is directly at odds with that of the United States, and at odds with that of NATO more broadly. The North Atlantic desired to cultivate Iran as a swing-power which could be peeled away from Russia and utilised for offsetting Russian preponderance over natural gas supplies to Europe, and which would perhaps someday be able to frustrate Russian attempts to consolidate its influence over CIS states that have cultural or historical ties to Iran. Israel has different ideas, because Israel has a different set of priorities.

So what are they complaining about? It’s a nonsensical complaint. The Israelis should have expected that they’d be monitored. This of course did not prevent Israel’s most ardent defenders from writing absolutely ridiculous stories for weeks on end about it.

But there was an element of this story that was not touched on and which was almost conspicuously not touched on. The fact that spying on Netanyahu would become the same thing as ‘spying on the US Congress’ was what really ought to have been the story. If spying on Netanyahu is almost the same thing as spying on the US Congress, then that is an indicator of there being a serious problem in the political system itself.

That problem looks like this:

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

How Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

And also ambassadors getting themselves involved:

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

Mr. Dermer was described as coaching unnamed U.S. organizations—which officials could tell from the context were Jewish-American groups—on lines of argument to use with lawmakers, and Israeli officials were reported pressing lawmakers to oppose the deal. [...]

Israel’s pitch to undecided lawmakers often included such questions as: “How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”

But you see, according to present and former US lawmakers who have enormous mouths and are suddenly very concerned about the somewhat nebulous concept of ‘civil liberties’, discovering when someone is trying to plunge a knife into your back is just the gravest violation of the privacy of those who are trying to do the plunging.

For example, Representative Ted Lieu, (D-California) who “has consistently voted to curb powers of the NSA”, asserted on twitter that:

If this is true, it is outrageous. #NSA should not be spying on Congress without a warrant.  https://t.co/YYfZbvwozt.

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) December 30, 2015

That’s the part he objects to.

And there was also none other than Pete Hoekstra (formerly R-Michigan), the former congressman who chaired the House Intelligence Committee from 2004—2007, took to twitter to complain, saying:

WSJ report that NSA spied on Congress and Israel communications very disturbing. Actually outrageous. Maybe unprecedented abuse of power.

— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 30, 2015

Perhaps Hoekstra is really upset because he shares something common with former representative Jane Harman (D-California), who in 2006 was being lined up to seamlessly replace him, and whose Israeli tricks were foiled by the NSA at that time too:

Wall Street Journal, ‘Lawmaker Is Said to Have Agreed to Aid Lobbyists’, Neil A. Lewis and Mark Mazzetti, 20 Apr 2009:

[...] Ms. Harman was inadvertently swept up by N.S.A. eavesdroppers who were listening in on conversations during an investigation, three current or former senior officials said. It is not clear exactly when the wiretaps occurred; they were first reported by Congressional Quarterly on its Web site.

The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.

In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor—the media mogul Haim Saban—would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post.

[...]

Much like Hoekstra, Harman also had something to say about supposed ‘abuses of power’ at that time:

Think Progress, ‘Harman: ‘I’m Just Very Disappointed’’, Ali Frick, 21 Apr 2009:

I’m just very disappointed that my country — I’m an American citizen just like you are — could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years.

She’s one of the people who approved the budget and the legal framework that would supply the NSA and others with equipment and a mandate to watch PCS networks and collect the data under ONEROOF, but then she thought that the NSA and FBI were going to magically avoid collecting signals from her because she’s special?

Whenever Jews or their associates find themselves being treated just like everyone else, they suddenly get very tearful and start talking about how they are so, so, so oppressed. A sad tune needs to be played for them, perhaps, on the tinyest of tiny violins.

Introduction

This 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 Model

We 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:

These two views are irreconcilably and diametrically opposed, and always will be.

Two camps: Make a decision, make a choice

Although 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.

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 ground

Many 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 confident

If 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.

Ahmed Mohamed: Clock Boy.

In the United States, a 14-year old student at Irving MacArthur High School named Ahmed Mohamed brought a device to his school that somehow caused school administrators to call the police, and the police then arrested him.

This is because all of them at least momentarily seemed to have believed that the device he had brought to school was ‘a hoax bomb’. It became immediately apparent that it was not a hoax bomb, and was in fact a clock inside of a pencil case.

Subsequently, a media frenzy developed around Ahmed Mohamed, which has led to an outpouring of sympathy directed toward him from various segments of American society.

The incident went viral on social media and the hashtag “#IStandWithAhmed” was the top non-promoted United States trend on Twitter early on Wednesday morning. Some people alleged that Mohamed was arrested only because of his Muslim name, or because of the way he looked. Many liberals and Muslims claimed the situation was a case of ‘Islamophobia’.

Many others would be inclined to gloss over this story, filing it away as just being an example of Americans being ‘too paranoid about terrorism’, embarrassing themselves, and then reversing course.

However, there are actually more interesting patterns at work here.

READ MORE...

The shocking, cruel reality of Europe’s refugee crisis
     
          Tiny Victim of Human Catastrophe

           
                            Two flew over Belarus

Richard Spencer’s experience of being fated to a ride a ski-lift to its conclusion in highly uncomfortable company prompts a story of my own fate on the chair.

In Richard’s case, fate had him stuck next to one Randy Scheunemann. Despite the discomfort, it was instructive (for me, anyway) to learn who this man was - an insider neo-con, influential during the W. Bush Administration and in fact, a member of Project For A New American Century, a.k.a., Operation Clean Break (to secure the ‘realm’ around Israel). Scheunmann was one of its loud voices advocating all of its wars and military operations going on behalf of Israel, using The U.S. and any other nation it could press into its service. But once out of a job with the “neo-cons” out of office, there he was, helplessly hovering, captive with an enemy.

My own experience in the fate of helplessly hovering did not have me placed in the company of an enemy, but with a man who was on amicable terms, could have been a good friend. Instead I ruined his day and caused a very uncomfortable, seemingly endless ski-lift ride to the top of Aspen Mountain. As this particular episode did not highlight the large fall of a once prominent man, but the pathetic bungling of normal relations, I intend to examine rather what I believe to be a non-trivial aspect – and that is the connection of fate. It is not my purpose to state that I have anything like a sufficient explanation yet for the meaning of fate. Rather, that I am compelled to believe in its more or less possibility – whereas I had not, and would not take the notion of fate seriously prior to experiences which I will recount.

Hovering with (people who should be) friends – a different kind of fate, the fate of a non-snob. Hovering with what should be friends above, friends below, friends on the level and not realizing who were and who were not friends - with bad effect.

Unlike Richard Spencer, I have been skiing exactly twice in my life. The first time was in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Having taken my ski lessons and mastered what was called “the intermediate slope” quite handily, I developed a bit of hubris in my ability – at least for the intermediate slope. I tried the advanced slope once and could not even stand before falling and being jettisoned downward. Nevertheless, even little kids were whisking down past me and I could not believe how they did it – I only realized that I could not handle the advanced slope.

Satisfied nevertheless, I returned to my hostel that evening (but did of course I see an interracial couple on the way, in case anyone believes New Hampshire is immune). One of the townies was there talking about how he advocated Pat Buchanan, who was running for Presidency (was that the year he had a Negro running mate? Perhaps); it struck me as strange for a kid that young to be promoting Pat (whom I never thought to be very good - “rather than ‘the sewer of multiculturalism’ all Americans should integrate as English speaking Christians” - good thinking, Pat. No wonder the mainstream media kept you around as a convenient foil all those years), but I appreciated his defiant conservatism. New Hampshire was one of the few places where Buchanan could win. Fate was kicking in, the trance recollections before and during my recent trip to Europe from which I’d just returned were prompting me..

There were some English skiers there at the hostel. A couple of young lads and an older English gent there solo. I could not forget his name, as it was Hamilton. We talked candidly about race. He expressed his admiration at how Germany had built their country right back up after World War II. When discussing the problems of our respective European nationalities, he gritted his teeth and said, “Jews!” I was not ready to go there. I still needed to hold breadth that this may be in some part, if not primarily a distraction from deeper issues. It was probably not in that moment but somewhere in that evening that I felt myself being aware that I was outside of my normal consciousness, castigating (laced with the vilest profanity) the girls running the hostel, one from France in particular, for being a nation of feminist bitches. They apparently understood that this was a trance as they calmly instructed me the next morning that I had to visit North Hampton - as I had told them that they were going to tell me to go to North Hampton in the next few days to meet my fate among the greatest concentration of lesbians in The U.S., North Hampton being the proximity of two of America’s most prestigious women’s colleges – Smith and Mount Holyoke.

The parting with Mr. Hamilton did not go as I might have liked. It was clear that we were both dearly committed to defending Europe against liberalism and non-Europeans. I had told him in the trance state the evening before that you can trust a man if you can look him dead in the eye and he does not look away. The next morning Mr. Hamilton had a big smile on his face as he saw me (my trances always seemed to have a healing effect on people); we shook hands in parting, he looked me dead in the eye; but I turned my eyes away and a puzzled frown came across his face. Though I regret making myself didactically untrustworthy in that instant, I know now that I did that because I did not yet know enough to express full enough agreement with him. That day, Hamilton, a Thomas Hamilton rather, massacred school children in Dunblane, Scotland. So it must have been the 13th of March 1996.

My hubris in prevailing over the intermediate slope of the White Mountains is humbled by the Nemesis of Aspen’s “intermediate” slope.

The next and last time I went skiing was in March again, four years later, in 2000, a few weeks after my father passed away. I had to drive his car from New Jersey to my brother in Arizona. On the way I decided to try skiing again – this time in Aspen, Colorado, on Aspen Mountain precisely. I must have made an awkward sight in my Carhartt pants amidst all other people equipped in proper skiing attire. But such was my hubris, I had mastered the intermediate slopes in The White Mountains. I could do this, just as I am. I rented my skis, took a day pass and hopped on the ski-lift next to a guy maybe around my age, late 30’s, obviously a nice guy – as one who clearly had experience, he nevertheless told me not to worry about my pants; and gave me some tips; to watch what other people were doing and encouraged me to have fun. We proceeded to talk and he said that he enjoyed hot air balloon racing.

I quickly chimed in with the story of the two balloonists who had accidentally drifted over Belarus the prior September, only to be shot as helpless sitting ducks. As I recounted the story to him, I did what many of you would do - I laughed, because it was so ridiculous and pathetic: the thought of these two sitting ducks, helplessly hovering there, American passports in hand, pathetically shot down as they dangled above the doltish force of nature that is a neo-Soviet mentality.

My raucous, cynical humor was not well placed. A sudden pained expression came over his face. “These were my friends” he said..

READ MORE...

- saw this one at a time when my mood was a bit down and it caught me just right, picked up my attitude on the fairer sex entirely.

- OK, the film is encouraging some liberalism (and some conservatism too), dating outside the ethnicity, but at least not outside the race entirely..and that’s somehow not the point anyway

- heard some unflattering criticism of Margi Clark since, but only hearsay for what I know

- some interesting things about the screenwriters as well…

- but anyway, I liked it ...and it seems to be a film that works for both men and women.

....a little humor here, don’t start accusing me of being a communist or a Soviet, please… I saw Brezhnev’s face in the newspaper once, thought it was funny and painted this cartoon of him..