Majorityrights Central > Category: Islam & Islamification

..give ‘who’ hell? For Jewish academics to play both sides of “PC” is nothing new. While the re-normalization and motion to institutionalize social classification is a positive development - via ‘give-em-hell Trump’ in his campaign talk - the most important issue in the end, is not just normalization, but where the lines of institutionalized discrimination are to be drawn.

Trump is saying some things that we might like to hear, with a candor that purports contempt for “political correctness”, a candor that has not been heard from the last 11 Presidents at least, spanning more than 60 years.

With that, he flouts the avoidance of “racial profiling” for having allowed the San Bernadino attack. It is indeed a positive development to assert the validity of “race” as a criteria.

“There were people who knew bad things were going on [with the family], and they didn’t report it because of racial profiling.”

Moreover, he takes the validity of “profiling”, i.e., classifying people, a bit further to say that there should be a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

NBC, ‘Trump Calls for ‘Complete Shutdown’ of Muslims Entering the U.S.’, 7 Dec 2015:

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump on Monday called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” the most dramatic response yet to the string of terrorist attacks that have Americans increasingly on edge.

Trump released a statement citing polling data he says shows “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.”

Trump Calls for ‘Complete Shutdown’ of All Muslims Entering U.S.

“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” Trump said.

Yes, it is a candor and a disdain for pseudo-intellectual and polite appearance that we have not heard from a President since “give-em-hell Harry Truman.”

Excellent though it is that race and other social classifications, and borders, are being re-invoked by “give-em-hell Trump” and that he is taking steps to re-normalize and re-institutionalize these criteria as a legitimate basis for discrimination…

one might wonder what, say, Japanese, et al., might think about who-for and how the “no-nonsense” lines are being drawn.

Playing “for/against PC” is nothing new for Jewish academia; i.e., one side playing “vanguard” while the other is “hand of restraint.”

Playing “for and against PC” is nothing new for Jewish academia: In this 1990 essay for the New York Times, Richard J. Bernstein is playing the role of “restraint”  -

New York Times, ‘IDEAS & TRENDS; The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct”, 28 Oct, 1990:

Central to p.c.-ness, which has roots in 1960’s radicalism, is the view that Western society has for centuries been dominated by what is often called “the white male power structure” or “patriarchal hegemony.” A related belief is that everybody but white heterosexual males has suffered some form of repression and been denied a cultural voice or been prevented from celebrating what is commonly called “otherness.”

But more than an earnest expression of belief, “politically correct” has become a sarcastic jibe used by those, conservatives and classical liberals alike, to describe what they see as a growing intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform to a radical program or risk being accused of a commonly reiterated trio of thought crimes: sexism, racism and homophobia.

“It’s a manifestation of what some are calling liberal fascism,” said Roger Kimball, the author of “Tenured Radicals,” a critique of what he calls the politicization of the humanities. “Under the name of pluralism and freedom of speech, it is an attempt to enforce a narrow and ideologically motivated view of both the curriculum and what it means to be an educated person, a responsible citizen.”

The restrained activist vs the activist vanguardist

In a generation before, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter* played the role of “restraint,” viz., the role of “activist restraint” opposed to “activist vanguard” - a role that shabbos goy Earl Warren was duped to take the lead in, as Chief Justice of an “activist Court.”

We should be on the watch as well, then, for the shabbos goy being fore-fronted as the “vanguard activist”, as:

Earl Warren was for the 1954 de-segregation (integration) decision and 1964 ”civil rights” legislation..

Teddy Kennedy was for the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act,

Either Trump or Hillary Clinton can be used for - what? - we might not know exactly what for sure yet, other than that it would be another travesty. Hillary Clinton may well fit the role of shabbos goy “vanguardist” for their next demonstration of “chutzpah.”

* Frankfurter, a Jew, presiding as Chief Justice in the Supreme Court prior, fancied his “a restrained activist Court” - and referred to his successor, Earl Warren, as “the dumb Swede” - worried that he would take the bait in such a headlong way of “activist vanguardism” that he would create an overly strong reaction.

Note: As it bears more attention, this article is duplicated from the MR News section, where it was originally published, 8 December 2015.

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.

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:

RFI English, ‘France to opt out of European human rights convention because of Paris attacks’, 27 Nov 2015 (emphasis added):

A police officer in Paris this week. [Reuters]

France is to opt out of some aspects of the European Human Rights Convention while the state of emergency declared after this month’s Paris attacks is in force. As well as raids on mosques and Islamic charities, police have swooped on radical environmentalists since the measure was introduced.

Some of the measures taken because of the state of emergency are “likely to necessitate exemption from some of the rights guaranteed” by the convention, the French authorities have told Council of Europe Secretary-General Thorbjorn Jagland.

States are allowed to opt out in case of war or a danger “threatening the life of the nation”, although they cannot be exempted from certain provisions, including bans on torture and cruel and inhuman treatment.

Exemptions can be challenged at the European Court of Human Rights.

There have been 1,616 searches of premises, 211 arrests, 161 people charged and 293 weapons seized since the state of emergency was declared.

Among the premises raided have been mosques, prayer rooms and shops targeted because “radical Islamists” were said to frequent them or because some sermons given were judged extreme.

But others have been on the homes of people who have taken part in environmental protests and occupations, such as the camp at the site of the proposed airport near Nantes in western France and one aiming to stop a dam in the south-west where a protester was killed.

Several activists have been placed under house arrest, apparently for fear that they might have defied the ban on demonstrations ahead of the Cop21 climate conference, which opens on Sunday 29 December.

“Special measures are necessary for the conference’s security” and there have been calls for “violent actions”, according to warrants seen by Le Monde newspaper.

On Tuesday a group of intellectuals published an appeal to defy the state of emergency in Libération newspaper and a Facebook page calling for “disobedience” of the ban on Sunday’s planned march for the climate had attracted 4,700 participants on Friday.

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?

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, commencing an Eagles of Death Metal concert, Tel Aviv, 12 July 2015:

Now I’m also going to tell you another true story before I bring the rest of the boys up here. We decided to end the tour in this fuckin’ city because we knew we couldn’t top it once we got here. That is 87 percent the absolute truth. But then we got this letter from this cocksucker named Roger Waters (jeers from crowd). Do you want to know what I wrote that cocksucker back? Two words: Fuck You!...Fuck You! Ain’t nobody goin’ to keep me from my people here in Tel Aviv! Ain’t Nobody!

                                     
Among other blundering statements, Hughes referred to Israelis as ‘his people.’ Unless there is something that we don’t know about him, they are not his people. The crowd at Bataclan, who should be referred to as “his people”, apparently did not know either that Israelis are not their people, or perhaps did not think attending a concert of someone who said that should, would, cost them their lives.

International Business Times, ‘Paris attacks: Eagles of Death Metal defied pro-Palestine boycott movement and Roger Waters to play Israel’, 20 Nov 2015:

A video has emerged of Eagles of Death Metal berating Pink Floyd founder and anti-Israel campaigner Roger Waters at a gig in Tel Aviv months before the Paris shooting at the Bataclan theatre.

The clip, from the band’s Tel Aviv concert in July, shows lead singer Jesse Hughes offering an expletive-laden riposte to a letter sent to the band by Waters urging them to shun Israel. It has been circulated in the wake of atrocities that claimed the lives of 132 people on 13 November.

In it Hughes tells the Tel Aviv crowd the band decided to end their tour in the city because they “could not top it”. The audience then boos mention of the Waters letter before Hughes shouts: “You want to know what I wrote that c********r back? Two words: f**k you!”

Waters, who has been accused of anti-Semitism, joined the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement - an anti-Israel pressure group - in 2012. Upon joining he called out to other musicians in an article he wrote for the Guardian: “[This is] a plea to my colleagues in the music industry, and also to artists in other disciplines, to join this cultural boycott.”

Roger Waters wrote to Eagles of Death Metal to urge them to boycott Israel.

The Paris attacks brought the video of Eagles of Death Metal back into focus because the formerly Jewish-owned Bataclan theatre which in the past has hosted pro-Israel Army events, and where the band were performing the night 89 people were killed, had supposedly been harassed by pro-Palestinian supporters in 2008.

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”..

CoS, ‘Fly Like an Eagle of Death Metal: An Interview with Jesse Hughes’, 1 Oct 2015:

At 43, Jesse Hughes hasn’t become an old man just yet. With the energy of a 16-year-old, he makes the most eccentric man in the world sound like a boozy liar.

The Eagles of Death Metal frontman has an opinion — often obscenity-filled — about everything. “But I’m not a bag of wind!” he insists. Around 30 minutes after our prearranged meeting time, before Eagles of Death Metal’s show in July, Hughes appears at his trendy hotel in the heart of Tel Aviv with two Israeli locals he just met at the falafel stand down the road. He’s dressed in typical Hughes attire: black-and-white-striped t-shirt with the sleeves cut off, suspenders, light jeans, and a neon green trucker cap with “Eagles of Death Metal” printed in Hebrew lettering.

A second after we meet, he’s chatting away on a tangent. Hughes is rarely off one. He sounds bluesy, even lusty when he talks, and when he gets especially riled up on a topic, he’ll bow his head, slap his knee, and speak like a southern debutant, referring to his fans as “the kids.” Hughes is as verbose as your archetypal reverend, hardly getting through his thoughts without breaching into song and then dissolving into giggles. Present him with a handshake or a voice recorder, and the truth serum starts to work.

Yeah, I’ve been shot before. Look. [shows scar on armpit] It made a canal through one of my muscles. I’ll tell you how it went down: I was going through a really ugly divorce, and I’m a devout Christian, so divorce isn’t a concept to me. I went through a very typical, clichéd “I served you my whole life, and this is what I get” anger. I weighed about 250 pounds, I was a big ol’ redneck boy. I was managing this privately owned chain of video stores and part-time freelancing for the Republican Party and speech writing and shit like that. The most awful thing I could think of immediately was to start taking speed. I lost 80 pounds, got really depressed. My mother called Joshua [Homme] because she felt he was one of the only dudes I listened to.

He dishes it out today. During our conversation, he gets into the full specifics of being saved from addiction by bandmate Joshua Homme, how he’s already written half of EODM’s next album, and how he’s struggling to convince everyone he’s a devout Christian who gets high and uses the phrase “titty-wobbling.” He talks about his face being a nipple on his album cover as seriously as his faith. “I know what you’re thinking — my life’s a contradiction,” he admits.

It’s dark stuff, but Jesse “The Devil” Hughes has a wicked sense of humor — crushing, hypnotic, and frequently laugh-out-loud ridiculous. “My way of thinking is,” he shrugs, “it’s gonna be harder in hell for me than for y’all. I’m just not going to be the fool that doesn’t know why he’s there.”

                                             
Christianity and its Enlightened step-child play a strong part in the confused identity and allegiance of welcomers as well.. ...and in the upshot of that confusion…

________________________________________________________________________

Addendum:

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:

Bloomberg Business, ‘Draghi Says ECB Will Do What It Must to Spur Price Gains’, 20 Nov 2015, 1349 UTC (emphasis added):

European Central Bank President Mario Draghi set the scene for further stimulus in two weeks’ time, saying the institution will do what’s necessary to reach its inflation goal rapidly. The euro fell.

“If we decide that the current trajectory of our policy is not sufficient to achieve that objective, we will do what we must to raise inflation as quickly as possible,” Draghi said in a speech in Frankfurt on Friday. “In making our assessment of the risks to price stability, we will not ignore the fact that inflation has already been low for some time.”

Draghi’s comments underline the ECB’s concern that the inflation rate in the 19-nation euro area, currently 0.1 percent, will slip further from its target of just under 2 percent amid a high degree of economic slack and slumping oil prices. Policy makers are weighing the need for an expansion to the 1.1 trillion-euro ($1.2 trillion) quantitative-easing program that started in March, or measures such as taking the deposit rate further below zero.

The yield on German 2-year bonds slid to a record low of minus 0.389 percent and the euro dropped. The single currency was down 0.4 percent at $1.0689 at 2:47 p.m. Frankfurt time.

Power Tool

“A further stimulus announcement in December is a virtual certainty,” said Marco Valli, chief euro-area economist at UniCredit SpA in Milan. “‘We will do what we must’ leaves little room for interpretation: if they fail to reach target, they do more.”

The ECB’s Governing Council will meet in Frankfurt on Dec. 3 for its next monetary-policy meeting. While Draghi and Executive Board member Peter Praet, the institution’s chief economist, have indicated more easing is in the cards, some governors have expressed unease.

Estonia’s Ardo Hansson, Slovenia’s Bostjan Jazbec and Germany’s Jens Weidmann have signaled since the last meeting that they see no need to ease policy further just now.

“I see no reason to talk down the economic outlook and paint a gloomy picture,” Weidmann said in a speech at the same event as Draghi. “Crucially, the decline in oil prices is more of an economic stimulus for the euro area than a harbinger of deflation.”

Praet said in an interview this week that taking no action in circumstances of such low inflation risks the ECB’s credibility, and has argued that the fall in oil prices is increasingly a sign of weakening demand.

QE Adjustment

“If we conclude that the balance of risks to our medium-term price stability objective is skewed to the downside, we will act by using all the instruments available within our mandate,” Draghi said. “In particular, we consider the asset-purchase program to be a powerful and flexible instrument, as it can be adjusted in terms of size, composition or duration to achieve a more expansionary policy stance.”

He added that the interest rate on the deposit facility “can empower the transmission” of asset purchases, “not least by increasing the velocity of circulation of bank reserves.”

Draghi said core inflation, which excludes energy and food, is also a signal of too-weak price pressures. The rate was 1.1 percent in October. While that’s the highest reading in more than two years, it’s still barely half the goal for the headline rate.

Core Concern

“Low core inflation is not something we can be relaxed about, as it has in the past been a good forecaster for where inflation will stabilize in the medium-term,” he said. “While core industrial goods will receive support from the depreciation of the euro, an increase in core services inflation –- today close to an all-time minimum –- will depend on rising nominal wage growth. For that to pick up, the economy needs to move back to full capacity as quickly as possible.”

The ECB is currently buying 60 billion euros a month of bonds and intends to do so through at least September 2016. The deposit rate is at a record-low minus 0.2 percent.

There is “little room for doubt that the central bank is not only about to step up its monetary stimulus, but plans to do so decisively,” said Nick Kounis, head of macro research at ABN Amro Bank NV in Amsterdam. “We expect the ECB to step up the pace of QE by 20 billion euros per month, signal that purchases will go on beyond September, and expand the eligible universe of assets to include regional bonds. We also expect a 10 basis-point reduction in the ECB’s deposit rate and guidance that it would be cut further if necessary.”

And:

Bloomberg Business, ‘Euro Resumes Drop as Draghi Leaves Little Doubt of More Stimulus’, 20 Nov 2015, 1708 UTC (emphasis added):

The euro fell for the first time in three days after European Central Bank President Mario Draghi said policy makers will do what they must to raise inflation “as quickly as possible.”

The shared currency weakened to almost a seven-month low against the dollar and dropped versus all of its 16 major peers. Draghi said in Frankfurt that downside risks to price growth have increased in recent months. The euro also fell after German producer prices declined more in October than forecast.

“It was clearly meant to stress that the ECB remains active and we’ve seen market responses accordingly—the euro has dropped back,” said Shaun Osborne, chief foreign-exchange strategist at Bank of Nova Scotia in Toronto. “The market is taking on board the message from Draghi that we should be prepared for potentially quite aggressive actions in December.”

The euro declined 0.7 percent to $1.0655 at 12:07 p.m. New York time, after gaining 0.9 percent in the previous two days. It touched $1.0617 on Nov. 18, the lowest since April 15. The shared currency fell 0.8 percent to 130.86 yen.

Draghi said last month that ECB policy makers would review the degree of monetary stimulus at their December meeting. Since then, the euro has weakened almost 6 percent versus the dollar as traders increased bets that officials may extend the bond-buying program or further cut the deposit rate.

German producer prices fell an annual 2.3 percent in October, after a 2.1 percent decline the previous month, the nation’s federal statistics office said Friday. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg forecast a 2 percent drop.

“We should be in little doubt that the ECB are again attempting to adjust the monetary policy dial, likely via extending and increasing QE, while another cut in the deposit rate is also on the cards,” said Jeremy Stretch, head of foreign-exchange strategy at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in London. “While far from an explicit aim, easing monetary conditions via a cheaper euro is also a positive by-product of such policies.”

The euro pared its decline as ECB official and Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann said he didn’t see any reason to “paint a gloomy picture” of the region’s economy. He warned that the longer ultra-loose monetary policy was in place, the less effective it can become.

And:

Bloomberg Business, ‘14 Predictions for 2016 from the Brightest Minds in Finance’, 20 Nov 2015, 0501 UTC (emphasis added):

[...]

Rebecca Patterson, chief investment officer of Bessemer Trust, which oversees more than $100 billion in assets

The biggest risk for Europe in the year? “It’s the refugee crisis,” says Patterson. “I think it’s the biggest challenge to the European Union yet. The horrible terrorist attacks in Paris increased the risk that the refugee crisis could result in a political and/or policy shift, or simply lead consumers to change their spending patterns. Either could weigh on sentiment around European growth and corporate profits.” Patterson is on alert for any such changes but remains overweight European equities and positioned for a weaker Euro, she says. “The Paris attacks sadly shone a light on the European refugee crisis; I assume more investors globally now are thinking more about what millions of immigrants can mean for an economy and respective markets. However, I am still not sure that investors globally have adequately thought through what market spillovers the European refugee crisis could trigger over the coming year.”

[...]

Erik Nielsen, chief economist at UniCredit

“Expect further divergence between the Fed and the ECB, with the former hiking rates a couple of times next year and the latter expanding its balance sheet more than it has presently announced.”

[...]

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.

“Hostages killed ‘one-by-one’ at Bataclan theatre.”

...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.

The situation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excuses, excuses

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

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

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

See here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, here’s an example of that:

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

[...]

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Earl and his fertile mind continue to go strong.

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

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

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

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

[...]

In 1993 Earl Raab also wrote:

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

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

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

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

Only pretending to be retarded

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

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

See here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

[...]

That is exactly the correct stance there.

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

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

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

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

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

The need for consistency

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

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

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