Dmitri (((Medvedev))) says that you shouldn’t worry about the migrants he is sending to you.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 13 February 2016 19:10.
Jews might not flock to Russia upon Putin’s offer, but they are already comfortably affixed there.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 13 February 2016 15:29.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 13 February 2016 13:05.
Let’s not argue separatism, let’s let Alex teach [...] amidst the tangled masses
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 13 February 2016 11:51.
Now Opening: Majorityrights.com Forum!
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 05:41.
Super Bowl Halftime Show Pays Homage to Black Panthers
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 09 February 2016 23:10.
3 of Them Defraud London Olympics Investors of £80 million
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 09 February 2016 22:02.
Light on Racial Accountability From Asia
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 09 February 2016 13:05.
PEGIDA on the streets of Europe
Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 07 February 2016 00:06.
African Rioting Tears through Melbourne
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 01 February 2016 22:54.
The Guardian newspaper is an archaic outfit whose propaganda operations will always be defeated.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 01 February 2016 17:00.
Donald Trump stares into the abyss in Iowa as it stares into him. And also you.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 01 February 2016 03:12.
[Majorityrights Video Library]
Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt: Muslims are the natural allies of the Jews in Europe.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 31 January 2016 17:54.
EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 31 January 2016 03:00.
Awakening, monarchy, and the faith?
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 28 January 2016 14:38.
Israeli “Opened Slovakia’s Door for Iraqi refugees”
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 11:42.
Danish Girl Charged for Defending Herself With Pepper Spray Against Foreign Attacker
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 11:21.
Bill Gates & UK Government Pledge 3 Billion to Compound Cataclysmic African Population Explosion
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 25 January 2016 23:49.
200 Patriots in Austria Brave Snow to Support Poland: Which Says F EU Migrant Requirements
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 25 January 2016 21:28.
Alt-Right: Defining real White men for you… with negrophilia & a lisp
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 24 January 2016 22:27.
Compulsory Diversity News: ‘fore the cuck crows, Donald will 3 times deny ye
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 23 January 2016 10:02.
An exploration of the link between languages and genes.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 23 January 2016 02:57.
Facebook Gets Involved in Asking Users to Snitch on One Another.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 23 January 2016 01:38.
Another instalment of ‘Things Putin actually said’. “Let them come here”, said Putin about Jews.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 21 January 2016 01:33.
Iran nuclear deal: ‘New chapter’ for Tehran as sanctions end.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 17 January 2016 19:23.
Police investigate whether 14-year-old was drugged and sexually assaulted
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 16 January 2016 17:15.
Schoolgirls report abuse by young asylum seekers
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 16 January 2016 15:49.
The NSA collects information on Israeli lobbyists, Jews scream bloody murder.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 16 January 2016 14:31.
JFK ‘63: asks Congress to commit to the proposition that ‘race has no place in American life & law’
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 14 January 2016 06:13.
Counter-cultural ruminations – Part 2, the culture war
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 11 January 2016 23:00.
Swedish Newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, Confronted With Cover-up of Issues Relevant to Crime
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 11 January 2016 21:22.
Hungarian Mainstream Cites Deliberate Genocide of White Europeans
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 10 January 2016 11:47.
Germany’s Jeopardy: Could the Immigrant Influx “End European Civilization”? - Dr. Frank Salter
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 08 January 2016 13:23.
Majorityrights Central > Category: Immigration
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:
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
For his insolent defiance of Roger Waters plea that he not play Israel, he might have been singing “We don’t need no education” right along with Pink Floyd .....but actually, maybe Jesse Hughes, his friends and fans could use a little. Try a caveat on Abrahamic fellowship.
Jesse Hughes is a “devout Christian.” That explains his confusion over who “his people are.”
He was interviewed before the Tel Aviv concert by “Consequence of Sound”..
Note that troll JamesUK likes to associate us with the right-wing circus and any sort of unflattering speculation that he possibly can; but I will leave that aside, at least for now in order to address this:
“Didn’t you say in a previous posting that Eagles of Death Metal represented white culture?”
I said that the Eagles of Death Metal fans represent implicitly White culture. Evidently their fans are predominantly White genetically; but the fact that the band leader, and likely a significant percentage of their fans, have a confused identity (case in point, thinking that Jews can be a part of their kin) as a result of Christianity and other Jewish crypsis, provides an excellent occasion to address those implicitly White demographics who suffer this confused identity as a result of Christianity.
I was not wrong to treat them as an implicitly White demographic, that remains true.
The band and audience alike reinforce this assumption by appearance, by the likelihood that they are predominantly, genetically White (European).
However, the band’s confused identity is misleading from the start, with their name: one associates death metal with paganism, a Nordic paganism defiant of Christianity in particular - and therefore assumes that the band and audience would have little to do with identifying as Israelis, with Judaism, or even its offspring, Christianity - let alone Hughes vehement “devotion.”
Hughes’ devout Christianity compounds the confused identity by taking his erstwhile White identity and enmeshing it with the Jewish narrative and identity, albeit as servile gentile other in relation to Israel, Jews and other non-Whites - the “undifferentiated gentile others”, as GW says.
As Hughes also made clear (unclear rather), in the CoS interview, he is quite contradicted and does not even expect to be recognized by the Abrahamic god.
His fans at the Bataclan also reflect and express this ambiguous identity, but with good natured participation in a bit of carousing, defiant music, irreverent language, devil sign, etc. I say “good natured” because they were apparently healthy, functioning people who had bearings outside of sex-drugs-rockn’roll.
Nevertheless, they lightheartedly though naively frolic with the Jewish god, tweak its nose and defy its rules for some practical latitude despite the unfortunate necessity of trafficking in its terms to some extent for the historical fact of their moral order having been entangled with it for two centuries. They are fooled by it on a profound level, however, as their seriousness, their devout service is reserved for the “other” - not for themselves - as they identify as the other.
That is in contrast the Muslims, who have their own form of puritanical servility to the Abrahamic god, submission to the Jewish god.
By further contrast to the Muslims, a certain amount of ambiguity, variety of sacrament and celebration is good and necessary in the social world of praxis - acceptance of that adds to the claim that the Bataclan audience have an aspect of good naturedness - i.e., an aspect that is not puritanical or fanatical in a way that does not allow their people to be human, social creatures and to be themselves in their particular, idiosyncratic White ways.
A homogeneous looking band and audience that accepts the misnomer of “death metal” provided the first clue that they have a good natured acceptance of some ambiguity, non-purity, i.e., an acceptance even of some relation to aspects of their natural White identity, even if only implicitly.
However, the extent of their connection to the Abrahamic religion contradicts that and brought them into the fold of its absolutizing fight, which will accept no other identity - will not accept White identity as the separate social entity that it is. Some of them came into ultimate confrontation of inhumanity to their humanity in social difference as a people separate from the Jewish god of Muslims.
The confused identity of our people at Bataclan became a confused message that the Israelis accepted disingenuously, that ISIL accepted on face value, that the band, audience, and I, allowed for in good faith - a confusion nevertheless inadvertently passed-on in the news of their death, presenting a perfect reason and occasion to sort-it-out here.
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:
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.
...some reflections on the events. It is salient that these killings were more personal and more directed at European peoples. That makes this, in an important sense, even worse, even more of an affront than 9-11. In 9-11, they went after symbols of Capitalism [World Trade Center] and the Military Industrial Complex [Pentagon] behind Liberal Democracy [Capitol building (i.e., tried to hit it, but failed, with the jet going down in Pennsylvania)]. Civilian casualties, though far more numerous, were incidental and not personally targeted.
In the case of the French attacks, however, not only did they choose to target the implicitly White culture of The Eagles of Death Metal fans [at Bataclan theatre], the implicitly White culture of football [Germany-France match], attended by the President of France, along with football’s not so implicit, but semi-explicit White culture [of football hooligans (as Jimmy Marr noted, hooligans tend to be nationalistic)]. They also went after the implicitly White cultural area of Paris in their targeting [the haute-bourgeoisie section (as noted by Kumiko)]. But not only did they contrast from 9-11 to narrow their target to these people demographically [implicitly White], in the case of the Bataclan theatre, they focused their attack still more, targeting them, [a death metal audience (or what they may as well have thought was one)] as personally as they could [holding them hostage] and shooting them [one by one].
Guess which one of these is applicable to Colin Liddell.
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:
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Oh, hey, has anyone in Europe noticed that Sweden is not Vietnam?
I’m going to do something interesting which might be new to some readers, but which I think is a necessary part of cornering liberals so that they cannot continue to wear the masks of various other political groupings. I’m going to criticise the situation in Sweden, but I’m going to do it in a polemical form and it will be done from the left. It will be done so that people can see what that might look like.
Sometimes people talk about how a country is destroyed ‘in slow motion’, and you have to watch trends develop over a very long period of time in order to find out what the tricks of the reactionaries look like. Other times, you can find the template by just watching for a matter of a few weeks, as the pattern of behaviour exhibited by the reactionaries is just a sped-up version of the long-term template that they have been using all along.
As Sweden backslides into becoming one of the most reactionary and frankly dangerous European countries to live in, we can see a microcosm of how that disaster is fomented in a single snapshot of just the past eight weeks.
Here’s Step One:
The reactionary bourgeoisie calls for even more migrants to enter the country because of their desire to knock down organised labour by using a reserve army of labour. They are completely out of control because the broad mass of the population has failed to establish institutional structures that would keep them in check. The labour unions have been totally co-opted by liberal-capitalists and the union bosses are on their payroll and can no longer be trusted. Clearly, someone needs to establish new labour unions that are independent from the control of the Swedish political establishment.
The reactionary bourgeoisie are even now passing laws that ‘allow the migrants to integrate into the labour market’, by which they mean setting up a multi-tier labour arrangement. What does that mean? It means that the migrants and low-skilled Swedish workers alike all will find themselves thrown into a semi-feudalist mode of production despite living territorially inside of a so-called ‘advanced’ economy. It will be a subordinated mode which the reactionary bourgeoisie would maintain by implementing enforced stagnation.
If that is allowed to continue, automation and mechanisation of the economy would be stalled, and in fact would go backwards, because there would be no incentive to develop productive forces further. Automation and mechanisation is usually spurred by a shortage of cheap labour, not a glut of it.
Here’s Step Two:
That money to ‘increase spending’ is not going to come from the pockets of the haute-bourgeoisie and their banking associates. Instead, it will come from the income taxes and regressive sales taxes that are imposed by the liberal-capitalist state against the broad mass of the people.
In other words, the taxes to pay for that ‘increase in spending’ will be collected from the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie. They will be asked to pay for their own enslavement, and pay for their own harassment by clerical-reactionaries in Muslim dress, and pay for their own impoverishment, and pay for the rising crime as Muslims rape their children. They’ll be told to accept this, because otherwise, someone might call them ‘racist’. And everyone knows how people are afraid of social organisation like how cats are afraid of water. Probably.
Here’s Step Three, just twelve days later:
The Swedish haute-bourgeoisie would like to thank you for accepting 10,000 migrants. Oh, sorry, they mean 22,000. No wait, they meant 74,000. Or was that 80,000? No, they really meant 190,000. But it might be even more later.
The cuts enacted by the state onto itself will not be a cut in the amount of money being funnelled toward servicing debts and bailing out banks, but rather will be a cut to the quality of social services, hospitals, and schools for the broad mass of ethnic Swedish people.
The haute-bourgeoisie who run the Swedish government should no longer be permitted to call themselves ‘progressive’, nor should they be allowed to call themselves ‘leftists’.
For maximum irony and maximum punishment, the Swedish haute-bourgeoisie should instead be forced to experience an actual left-nationalist revolution right in their face which will utterly dispossess them of everything that they purport to own, so that they can see what actual leftism looks like.
And now before you readers start asking me if I’m trafficking in pure heroin in this post, just stay with me for a moment and actually engage in this thought experiment. It’s just a thought experiment, but I’m doing this so that you understand a particular point here.
Obviously, the following groups will not be able to accept even the thought of such a programme, as it effectively confiscates all of their property and outlaws them:
That would be fortuitous, given that all three of those subversive miscreant groups could then be hunted down and arrested by the military or secret police, and then they could be sent to a detention facility and subsequently deported from the country.
Now, what is the point of this thought experiment? Well, I invite any of the Swedish readers of Majorityrights, to find some Swedish so-called ‘leftists’ in your neighbourhood. Propose my thought experiment programme goals to them with a straight face and with a seeming seriousness of intent, and then see how they react to it.
If the so-called ‘leftists’ react to the programme with horror and loathing because it harms the pro-immigration agenda, then you can say to them, “Oh, I see, you aren’t really leftists at all, you’re actually just a bunch of liberals who love getting cucked by black and Arab men”.
And you yourself will have also learned an interesting political lesson at the same time, from that whole experience.