Majorityrights Central > Category: Military Matters

Click the image for a video of Bill Clinton presenting his usual stump on behalf of Hillary to a synagogue audience in Illinois.

The “inclusive, inclusive, inclusive” bit was frightening in the 1990s, when he was running for President, because “inclusive” can be a good concept when applied within a legitimate classification; and at the time there was more chance that it could have been honestly mistaken as if that’s what he meant; and not heard as what he actually means, which is the Jewish “inclusive” - a hyper-liberal inclusiveness that would include everybody [and he does emphasize everybody] - people formerly from without of a racial classification and formerly outside of the nation. This paradoxical “inclusiveness” would ultimately dissolve the classification, the nation, the people, the tribe altogether - viz., it would dissolve the very thing to be included-in.

It would dissolved to a vague catch-all category of undifferentiated gentile others; while one tribe would maintain its distinction, of course.

In 2016 it sounds less frightening than totally absurd given the floods of immigration into The U.S. and Europe. This audience in the synagogue reacts only with applause either because they are completely blind to the fact that they are being herded, thinking that they can maintain their Jewish sanctioned activist distinctions indefinitely, or because they are in on the joke.

Their biggest applause are reserved for when Bill says that what he is most proud of is that Hillary distinguishes herself from the other candidates by more fervently denouncing prejudice against Muslim Americans (following the Noachide laws apparently being good enough to qualify people for inclusion as Americans). Bill concludes by rubbing his hands together with the audience over the prospect (given Scalia’s death) of Hillary putting through another “Justice” just as good as the one that he put on the Court -

Bill literally wept before America, so moved as he was when his nominee had ascended to The Supreme Court.

     
(Doug Mills/Associated Press)

Among Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s first statements was to maintain her long standing conviction as a “civil rights” advocate that nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics.

European peoples, the time for being alarmed or despairing over this has long since passed. The neo-liberal complicity with the Jewish notion of “including ‘marginals” is, as I have said in several places, a paradoxical notion of “inclusion” that they have put together with an inverted notion of “marginals” - a notion of “marginals” by which they mean not marginals, as that would imply those who are just within our boundaries but being pushed to the side and ultimately outside - they mean rather taking in those from without.

With the flooding incursion of migrants and the chutzpah of this inclusion rhetoric absurdly unabated, it is time to see all of this for what it is and to organize as Whites/Native Europeans - maintaining our important distinctions and bounds as they provide accountability and serve our human ecologies, sure; but recognizing that we must coordinate our defense with overall organization as European peoples.

We are under attack for that reason in essence, no matter where or what we might take recourse to in lieu of defending ourselves on that basis. Wherever we are, we are in need of a union, unions and coordination of defense based on our most precious and essential bond - that is our DNA.

Europeans can no longer afford to tarry uncritically with those who would proceed with the modernist bastard child that is universal principles and rights, nor cater to those who would attempt to “save us” with neo-traditional re-organizations under the anachronistic rubric and poison rule structures of “Christendom.”

These aren’t surrogates for our DNA and biology - in lieu of that rather, they are midwives to the birthing of pan-mixia and our genocide.

Picture a cartoon illustration here that I had to take down due to EU law. Its title reads “Jews, Musilims, Christians.” Beneath that title it shows the identical happy self hand clasping merchant three times - their only being dressed differently and having slightly different skin tone - the obvious implication being that there is no important difference. There is a sarcastic sub-title: “know the difference, it could save your nation” and a conclusive line, “Semitic Religion, not even once.” Which is the same as saying, Abrahamic religion, not even once.

The time has also passed to be surprised or despair at how the all too kosher Merkel will act quite similarly with regard to our borders on the European end, and how the Noachide sheep will react to those who would oppose her - marking little difference between Europeans in America or here in Europe, as they continue to operate under the same neo-liberal rule structures and Noachide law. The time is now to wrest and forge our rule structure anew in organization and activism of the White Class.

Alex Linder interviewed (try not to let the Australian accent of his interviewer bother you).

There is or can be a misunderstanding.

- that I simply want to refrain from going ahead and killing Jews et al. on principle, naivete or for petty moral reasons.

- that I and we could not be content nor ever recognize that we’d be better off if they were gone.

But that is not the case.

It is the case rather that it is generally not a good idea to announce that you want to get them all whether you think it is necessary or not.

It would be hard to implement and worse, might work to our detriment if not conceived and promoted properly.

It is not only a strategic matter but a theoretical matter: for what we want ultimately is separatism (killing is a species thereof).

Separatism can be argued not only by broader and more practical metrics, but if it is achieved, it is more feasible for the purpose of killing - as opposed to taking the stance that even while they remain tangled up in our hair, we might succeed in the complex affair of teaching people to know, psychologically, what to do because Alex says so (bold and intelligent though most of his arguments are)...

As opposed to Alex saying so, if they are to be killed it would be for the broadly intelligible, broadly acceptable (therefore possible to facilitate) and operationally verifiable reason that they will not leave us alone when given the option, but insist on their imposition to our exploitation and long term extinction - a verifiable consequence and reason for their imposition - to eliminate us as a people, therefore a highly assertable warrant to preempt it.

This could be demonstrable even in their refusal to allow our benign and fair act of separating and expelling them from our people.

Given these considerations hence, my motto: separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim, separatism is always possible.

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

That problem looks like this:

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

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

And also ambassadors getting themselves involved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) December 30, 2015

That’s the part he objects to.

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

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

— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 30, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

I love pointing-out to people, right-wingers, who want to blame youth culture of the 60s as the onset and crux of our demise (not you, GW), that Jewish power and influence combined with Modernist naivete were the forces that were the major culprits - and they were well in force already in the 50s and early 60s, well before kids grew their hair long, listened to rock n’ roll and resisted the Vietnam draft.

Take note of Michael O’Meara’s discussion of how The Soviets and other Marxists/communists used black “civil rights” as a weapon against America; also note my reinforcement that Jewish interests, via Katzenbach, prominently, were only too happy to facilitate what was then more straightforwardly referred-to as “integration.”

Kennedy had been ignoring Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson’s advice, to “look Southerners in the eye and tell them that integration was a moral and Christian issue.”

Governor Wallace, posturing as if to stand in the way of integration, is confronted by Katzenbach

Watching Wallace’s posturing, President Kennedy decided for the first time in his career to risk his political standing in the South by taking the side of integration. President Kennedy decides to go on national television that night and give a speech calling for a civil rights act to end discrimination in the South.

“We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and as clear as The American Constitution. The heart of the question is, whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities (He ‘finally’ calls for Federal law ending segregation). Next week I shall ask the Congress of The United States to act, to make a commitment that has not been fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law.”

This, GW, is why not only the Arahamic universalism of The Right, but its wedding to Enlightenment style objectivism (and universalism) must be overcome as well - and it is the post modern project, proper, which has undertaken to do that.

Kennedy is also the one who got us into the Vietnam debacle with a strategy of showing strength against communism with “small wars.”

The documentary concludes..

‘Kennedy set so much in motion in such a short period of time”...

Perhaps the most reliably good outcome of Kennedy biographies are the endings.

While I am adamant about the right and oughtness of fighting when one’s own borders and EGI are being infringed upon, I am not a hawk. Geopolitical warfare has never been something that appealed to me, let alone with any sort of passion.

I’m very averse to the idea of going beyond my national boundaries to fight, particularly when my own nation is totally screwed-up, needs tending and where innovative thinking might solve problems as opposed to trying to solve them by resorting to warring abroad.

The problem is that there are valid arguments that there are vital requirements along the Silk Road, in the Middle East and in Africa - resource and population management that is indispensably necessary even to the most innovative and independent peoples. In these concerns, I’m going to invite the reader to consider with me the possibility of re-drawing ethno-nationalist and regional lines on this map.

As you can guess, conversations with Kumiko have got me taking these matters under consideration, and I hope that she will soon put up an article discussing issues that the neo-cons have failed to make in clear and persuasive terms.

Tangential to neo-con issues is an interesting philosophical question for another day: how, in detailed form, to set up a rule structure which will sort out and punish the genetic legacy of criminals; and facilitate the rebirth of those genetic components that have suffered unjustly at the hands of criminals in previous generations. In this case, I am thinking more in terms of those who have historical grievances with Russians - while it is true that I don’t feel this grievance as do some others that I’ve known, it is nevertheless only practical to set the question aside for the time being - though it is a question that can apply to any people who have benefited or suffered from historical atrocities.

Europeans, now, are asked even more fundamental questions than relative guilt and merit, but are asked to address the matter of our identity, period - that we are a people (different from Jews and others), to establish who we are, what the nature of our common moral order is, to understand that the obfuscation of that would-be peoplehood is a part of a war against us - and that there is, indeed, a war against us; finally, we are asked what is the nature of that war and what it consists over?

When considering these matters from a White Nationalist perspective, Russian people are not conceived as inherent enemies, nor, even, is the humongous expanse of their nation high on the list, if on the list at all, of things intolerable to allow to remain. At first blush, I can imagine living with it - it’s always been that way in my lifetime; its reach contracted after the fall of The U.S.S.R., but still remains bigger than Pluto.

Nevertheless, we ought to reconsider this from an Asian perspective, and from a perspective of acute European interests.

I didn’t expect to have occasion at this point to consider aloud the possibility of attempting to align formal industrial military objectives with ours as White Nationalists. Oil, resources, even absurd and brutal regimes in the Middle East and Africa inflicting harm upon their own do not stir any passion in me to fight. The function of Asian countries and Western countries do, however, have requirements and rationale to get these nations under compliance. And in hopes of facilitating the human resource of Kumiko’s military perspective, I am going to imagine empathic military geo-political objectives, so that we might envisage a grand chess board result in our victory.

From that standpoint I attend to the fact that as nationalists and as White people in particular, fighting for the survival and sovereignty of our nations, that militarization and the geopolitics of resource and population management will ultimately be necessary.

Asia and the West have things that we need from one another, including cooperation against antagonisms from the Middle East and Africa.

Not only do we need resources from these places but we need mutual help in border control and repatriation projects.

What about Russia? It is so big. Why not just work with them and allow its vast space to become a place for White people to grow into?

While it is true that another traditional passion for some war mongers is hating Russians and maybe I should hate them, I don’t hate them. Nor do I care if people want to move there; furthermore, I completely understand not wanting to fight them. I don’t want to fight Russians; the war in Ukraine has been instigated by Judaized and neo-liberal means and motives and it disgusts me.

Even so, WN tendencies to look upon Russia as the great White hope ignore the propositional, neo-liberal, mercantile and Judaized aspects of Russia - as if its political class has no corruptions analogous to The US that will wreak havoc with such projects to connect with Russia as a partner in White Nationalism.

On the other hand, while I favor Ukrainian and Belarusian sovereignty, as I favor all ethnonational sovereignty, I am opposed to a hot war approach with Russia to increase their sovereignty.

But neither am I in favor of a hot war approach to defending Russia’s humongous eastern stretch and southern conflicts.

Rather than abandon to foreign invaders the natural ethnonationalist homelands of our European evolution and engage in White flight to move into lands that apparently represent imperialist aggrandizement - beyond ethnonational mandate - on the part of Russia, to reiterate, neither am I particularly interested in fighting to protect Russia’s imperial overreach.

In a word, defending what is apparently an imperial over-reach is Russia’s problem and an issue that can be turned to our advantage as Europeans in order to gain cooperation with our EGI, its borders and vital resources.

We need Chinese, Japanese and other Asian cooperation more than we need Russia’s imperialist headaches; and China and Japan are not about to start loving Russia more than their own interests which are impacted by Russia’s Eastern and Southern interference.

We need cooperation with Asia to compel compliance with regard to resource, EGI and border management. And we might compel Russia’s compliance as well with those needs by means of the West’s regional alliance with Asia.

Thus, while we might not engage a war of maneuver in either Russia’s west nor east, we might well consider lending approval to Asian positioning in Russia’s east and south.

That is, allowing the “stick” (as opposed to “carrot”) of some of these lands as potentially sovereign Asian places: with enclaves Russian and enclaves Asian, the farther east you go, the more the general area would be Asian with fewer Russian enclaves and vis a versa - the farther West, the fewer Asian enclaves until you reach a point where it would be a Russian only ethnostate. And the carrot to Russia would be less contentious relations with its neighbors, more secure borders, and more cooperation in resource garnering, management and use. That is not necessarily a bad deal.

Toward an Asian-Atlantic regional cooperation.

1. The genetic-make-up and territorial boundaries of the European ethno-states shall be restored, maintained and protected.

2. To achieve this end we propose alignment with the Asian ethno-states and region.

3. Something like the E.U. and North Atlantic would be necessary to achieve that alliance and its success.

However, it will also involve some quid pro quo.

4. First, we see it as being in both of our interests to secure our peoples against impositions of Middle-Eastern and African populations; against imposition of the Abrahamic religions; and against interference of these peoples and religions in our vital resources.

5. Toward that end, it is in the interest of both Asians and Europeans to remove these populations to the greatest extent possible from our geo-political territories; and, again, to remove significant imposition/interference upon our mutual vital resource interests.

6.  Sacrosanct European territories in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand will likely need to become smaller at any rate in order to be maintained and defended. But with the increased manageability of defense will come an opportunity to offer cooperation to Asians to have some sacrosanct territories of their own in these places. We will respect and cooperate with one another toward the defense of our territories in diaspora, seeing African and Middle-Eastern (saliently Jewish and Muslim) populations as those who must be guarded against and compelled to as great a distance from our people as possible, removed from civic nationalization and its proximity.

7. Russia/ns will be seen as having an analogous situation to White Americans. In order to have a safer, more manageable ethno-state and something to offer in exchange with the Euro-Asian regional alliance, they will be required to contract in size considerably, particularly from its expanse eastward into Asia and its geo-political interference there and to its south, unilaterally along the Silk Road. Russia’s ethno-state will be more secure as it will be forced into a more cooperative and less antagonistic relation with the rest of the geo-polity.

The key deal is this: we will compel Russia to relinquish parts of its territory (leaving it no good choice but to comply). In exchange we will require Asian assistance in cleansing and defending our territories from imposition by non-natives - particularly Africans, Middle Easterners, Muslims and Jews. And we will require compliance in securing our vital resources and transportation routes.

The advantages to European peoples and Asians in this alliance is clear.

But what regional and national lines might you imagine and what advantages to Russia and others do you see for compliance? Discuss.

As there are no Russian cities larger than 600,000 east of lake Baikal (near the city of Irkutsk, centrally to the north of Mongolia), and only four larger than 300,000, one way of arranging the pockets, enclaves, ethno-state outposts as it were, would be to have a symmetrical “M.C. Escher-like” arrangement (as in the image called “Day and Night” above), i.e., an entering of these enclaves into the others general regional sphere - enclaves which would, nevertheless, represent sovereign states. 

The plan would emphasize deportation and re-doing citizenship in favor of native lines, viz., on the basis of ethnostates. That is unlike the Moscow - Berlin - Paris axis, which apparently seeks to reconstruct the same old right-wing, propositional/objectivist oil interests.

Note: I can see how this could create incentive for Eastern European nations to cooperate - from a position of strength and in cooperation with White diaspora (note the interview of Tomasz Szczepański under the fold).

The Eastern European nations may agree to cooperation despite history of disputes (sometimes serious), and facilitate this ethno-nationalist and regional cooperation if their borders and native populations are guaranteed. If they are a part of a plan that guarantees that and necessary resources from the Silk Road - accomplished by increased cooperation with Asia and a Russia dealing from a cooperative position; then perhaps ethnonational and regional alliance with Asia can work. I.e, Russia has to offer more than trade in natural resources garnered through its vast expanse and fist waving at anybody who doesn’t see their interests being secured inasmuch.

The area that is to be reserved as sacrosanct to the Russian ethnostate would be contracted from imperial dimensions and more in line with ethno-national proportions.

It is a contraction in concession to cooperation with other ethno-European nations that WN America will likely need to undergo as well.

This will make Russia more defensible and more worth cooperating with for the rest of Europe and Asia - as they will be required to join this Euro-Asian regional cooperation against middle eastern interference - whether Arab, Islamic or Jewish, they will be beholden to our terms and we will have the necessary resources of the Silk Road.

The other side of the deal for compliance and cooperation to garner vital resources, is that our vital EGI will be cooperated with in protection as well - including not only in border defense, repatriation and de-nationalization of the majority of non-natives from European and Asian countries, but most strictly the border defense, de-nationalization and removal of non-natives from European nations; while allowing for some accountable quota of Asians and Europeans in one another’s nations and regions.

READ MORE...

Much as we disapprove of the war in Ukraine and recognize the nefarious Jewish and capitalist machinations behind it, we should not, on the other hand, fail to recognize that Ukraine is a distinct nation of our European peoples which ultimately deserves its sovereignty as well - as a nation in European cooperation: i.e., be skeptical about European relations and “The EU” and NATO for precisely the same reasons as those behind the boggled conflict as it would have been, particularly with the Jewish hand wielding part; but not totally cynical of some concept of European Union, even if we have nothing like a bonafide version of that or national sovereignty at present. If we can ever be free of deracinated international capitalist control and Jewish influence   ...we might dream big, we might even dream of wresting the powers of NATO to our genuine defense as European peoples and lands throughout.

To turn our dreams of our true interests as European peoples into a reality and with that, take our full sovereignty for the first time in millennia, we must wake from the Abrahamic fairy tale, chimera, really…

Happy Winter Solstice Europeans!
       

                              - Solstice card courtesy TT

They told me a fairy story ‘till I believed in the israelite

They said there’ll be snow at christmas
They said there’ll be peace on earth
But instead it just kept on raining
A veil of tears for the virgin’s birth
I remember one christmas morning
A winters light and a distant choir
And the peal of a bell and that christmas tree smell
And their eyes full of tinsel and fire

They sold me a dream of christmas
They sold me a silent night
And they told me a fairy story
‘till I believed in the israelite
And I believed in father christmas
And I looked at the sky with excited eyes
‘till I woke with a yawn in the first light of dawn
And I saw him and through his disguise

I wish you a hopeful christmas
I wish you a brave new year
All anguish pain and sadness
Leave your heart and let your road be clear
They said there’ll be snow at christmas
They said there’ll be peace on earth
Hallelujah noel be it heaven or hell
The christmas you get you deserve

Emerson, Lake & Palmer - I Believe In Father Christmas Lyrics | MetroLyrics

...and a Ukrainian folk song that has come to be known as the Christmas song “Carol of Bells”

READ MORE...

Refugee Resettlement Watch’s 10 Reasons For Moratorium. Appeal To Rep. Goode & Doing good for Doing good - The Golden Rule.

I add “the golden rule” to the title sarcastically - not only to chide those lining their pockets in the name of Christian altruism. This rule that has been passed onto European moral orders altogether disingenuously, from Judaic prescription to Gentiles (Jews do NOT abide by the golden rule), has been as catastrophic as any imbibed of Jewish chimera. This edict from “the sermon on the mount” is completely illogical and self destructive. There is a key distinction that needs to drawn by contrast, which is logical - morally and otherwise: the silver rule.

Note: these articles are being re-posted from the MR News section (5 Dec. 2015) as they bear more attention. Now that Ann Corcoron is taking a break from the excellent work that she’s been putting out, it’s time for MR to pick up some of the slack and forefront her efforts. MR has an added benefit (from our POV) of being able to expound from a distinctly pro-White/Native European, secular perspective.

Noticing the style of the “moratorium” logo and its coincidence with an appeal to Virgil Goode, I couldn’t help but find it reminiscent of Dietrich’s VoR design..

...and also that Virgil Goode represented a unique experience for me, to actually be talking with a Congressman as I produced the Stark interview with him. Congressman Goode stayed available on my Google chat and otherwise in communique with me for several months afterwards. That was funny for me, in a good way. Though it should be normal, how many Congressmen speak openly with our kind? It speaks well of him. Ann Corcoran has placed her appeal in the right direction.

Here is the post of the Stark Interview -

VoR, The Stark Truth: Interview with Virgil Goode,  25 April 2012:

Rep. Virgil Goode

Robert interviews Virgil Goode. Topics include:

• The Constitution Party;
• The need for reduction in immigration both legal and illegal;
• National sovereignty, NAFTA, and the North American Union;
• Foreign policy and the Iraq war;
• Energy independence.

Virgil Goode is the presidential nominee for the Constitution Party. He represented Virginia’s 5th Congressional District as a Republic from 1997-2009. He previously served in the Virginia State Senate as a Democrat.

Refugee Resettlement Watch, ‘Re-post: Ten reasons there should be a moratorium on refugee resettlement’, 5 December 2015:

Posted by Ann Corcoran

Now that the mainstream media and the public are waking up to the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program and how it has been operating for the last 35 years, I thought it would be a good idea to re-post this testimony I gave to the US State Department (first in 2012 at its annual scoping meeting and repeated in 2013 and 2014).

Anne Richard is the Asst. Secretary of State for Population Refugees and Migration. Here she testified last month at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Syrian refugees. She needs to produce the hearing record for the 2015 ‘scoping meeting’ which we believe was held in secrecy. Photo and story about Judiciary hearing: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/19/state-dept-official-syrian-refugees-less-threat-stops-tracking-3-months/

I just mentioned it in my previous post on annual reports.

As far as we can tell, the US State Department did not hold a public scoping hearing in 2015 (for FY2016) because we never saw a notice for it this year. In these ‘scoping meetings/hearings’ they ostensibly seek public input on the size of the program for the upcoming year and they want to know what countries should be the focus of protection.

The ‘scoping’ meeting (like a hearing) was usually held in late spring/early summer of the preceding year. Prior to our attendance in 2012, these meetings/hearings were dominated by the resettlement contractors and their groupies.

One more thing, the State Department does not keep and publish a hearing record for this meeting. The only way we could ever learn what others were saying is to obtain the hard copy testimony by attending in person! There ought to be a law!

Here is my testimony in 2012 (repeated in 2013 and 2014):

Ten Reasons there should be no refugees resettled in the US in FY2013—instead a moratorium should be put in place until the program is reformed and the economy completely recovers.

1)  There are no jobs. The program was never meant to be simply a way to import impoverished people to the US and place them on an already overtaxed welfare system.

2)    The program has become a cash cow for various “religious” organizations and other contractors who very often appear to care more about the next group of refugees coming in (and the cash that comes with each one) than the group they resettled only a few months earlier. Stories of refugees suffering throughout the US are rampant.

3)  Terrorist organizations (mostly Islamic) are using the program that still clearly has many failings in the security screening system.  Indeed consideration should be given to halting the resettlement of Muslims altogether.  Also, the UN should have no role in choosing refugees for the US.

4)  The public is not confident that screenings for potential terrorists (#3) or the incidences of other types of fraudulent entry are being properly and thoroughly investigated and stopped.  When fraud is uncovered—either fraud to enter the country or illegal activity once the refugee has been resettled—punishment should be immediate deportation.

5)    The agencies, specifically the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), is in complete disarray as regards its legally mandated requirement to report to Congress every year on how refugees are doing and where the millions of tax dollars are going that run the program.  The last (and most recent) annual report to be sent to Congress is the 2008 report—so they are out of compliance for fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011.  A moratorium is necessary in order for the ORR to bring its records entirely up-to-date. Additionally,  there needs to be an adequate tracking system designed to gather required data—frankly some of the numbers reported for such measures of dependence on welfare as food stamp usage, cash assistance and employment status are nothing more than guesses.  (The lack of reports for recent years signals either bureaucratic incompetence and disregard for the law, or, causes one to wonder if there is something ORR is hiding.)

6)  The State Department and the ORR have so far failed to adequately determine and report (and track once the refugee has been admitted) the myriad communicable and costly-to-treat diseases entering the country with the refugee population.

7)  Congress needs to specifically disallow the use of the refugee program for other purposes of the US Government,especially using certain refugee populations to address unrelated foreign policy objectives—Uzbeks, Kosovars, Meshketians and Bhutanese (Nepalese) people come to mind.

8)  Congress needs to investigate and specifically disallow any connection between this program and big businesseslooking for cheap and captive labor.  The federal government should not be acting as head-hunter for corporations.

9)    The Volag system should be completely abolished and the program should be run by state agencies with accountability to the public through their state legislatures. The system as presently constituted is surely unconstitutional.  (One of many benefits of turning the program over to a state agency is to break up the government/contractor revolving door that is being demonstrated now at both the State Department and ORR.)  The participating state agency’s job would be to find groups, churches, or individuals who would sponsor a refugee family completely for at least a year and monitor those sponsors. Their job would include making sure refugees are assimilating. A mechanism should be established that would allow a refugee to go home if he or she is unhappy or simply can’t make it in America. Short of a complete halt to resettlement-by-contractor, taxpayers should be protected by legally requiring financial audits of contractors and subcontractors on an annual basis.

10)  As part of #9, there needs to be established a process for alerting communities to the impending arrival of refugees that includes reports from the federal government (with local input) about the social and economic impact a certain new group of refugees will have on a city or town.  This report would be presented to the public through public hearings and the local government would have an opportunity to say ‘no.’

For these reasons and more, the Refugee admissions program should be placed on hold and a serious effort made by Congress to either scrap the whole thing or reform it during the moratorium.  My recommendation for 2013 is to stop the program now.  The Office of the President could indeed ask for hearings to review the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980-–three decades is time enough to see its failings and determine if reauthorization is feasible or whether a whole new law needs to be written.

Information on the three hearings we wrote about and attended are archived here, here and here.  (Those files include posts in which we referenced the hearings/meetings as well.)

By the way, Richard revolved into the State Department from her contractor job at the International Rescue Committee. She had a previous stint at the State Dept.  The revolving door is alive and well between contractor and federal agency involving refugee resettlement.

Come on, you can do it! Say “MORATORIUM”, 5 Dec 2015:

Posted by Ann Corcoran

She could not be “vetted.”

Where are you Virgil Goode?

Did you see that even the NY Times wrote about the female Islamic terrorist, how there was no way to “vet” her or to “screen” her as she came to live among us. Any logical person can see that. There was no d*** data, no biographic or biometric information to tap! And, if asked about any terror connections in personal interviews she certainly didn’t tell the truth.

So, don’t you wonder why only TEN US Senators can see that and that 89 others are so willfully blind. See our post on Senator Paul’s failed attempt at a moratorium on issuing visas to those coming from jihad-producing countries.

And, here see Daniel Greenfield on the killers yesterday.  If you read nothing else from Greenfield’s post, this is the line every one must grasp:

It’s a matter of simple math that as the population most likely to commit terrorist acts increases, so do the acts themselves.

I went back to our archives to see when I first heard anyone suggest a MORATORIUM on Muslim immigration and want to give a shout-out to former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode who saw the San Bernardino slaughter coming 9 years ago!  Learn about how the politically correct harpies at the Washington Post treated him then.  His position, in support of a moratorium on legal (Muslim) immigration to America cost him his seat. We told you more about him here in 2010.

Political correctness is dead! Everyone of you must start saying the ‘M’ word!  MORATORIUM!  Moratorium on Muslim migration to America, NOW!

Thank you Mr. Goode!  Goode is a Trump supporter in Virginia today!

Rep. Virgil Goode

See more to the story below..

...and…

Refugee Resettlement Watch, ‘Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota is responsible for the Somali chaos in St. Cloud’, Posted by Ann Corcoran on March 26, 2015:

If you are angry (about the tension in St. Cloud) and want one entity to blame, it is Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, the primary federal refugee resettlement agency working in St. Cloud!

That supposedly ‘Christian’ charitable organization is directly responsible for the high Somali numbers in St. Cloud, and they are jointly responsible for bringing over ten thousand Somalis from around the world to colonize Minnesota towns in the last ten years alone—Catholic Charities and World Relief MN (now Arrive Ministries)*** helped also.  Of course they have brought many more than 10,000 in over two decades and not just Somali Muslims!

Rumor has it that 1,500 new Somalis are going to be resettled by the Lutherans in St. Cloud this year.  (This is part of former Rep. Michele Bachmann’s district!)

Doing well by doing good? Jodi Harpstead is making over $300,000 a year to seed St. Cloud and other Minnesota towns with Somali Muslims.

These three ‘Christian’ phony non-profits (phony Christians!) could stop the US State Department’s further seeding of the state if they just said NO!  We won’t resettle any more Muslim ‘refugees.’  But they don’t!  Why?

Why? Because it is big business (as we learned from Lutherans in New England)!  They dare not challenge their sugar daddy—the federal government!  And, they must be afraid of the growing power of the Islamists and the Islamist front group—Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—which they are responsible for unleashing on the city of St. Cloud.
So how much money does it take to buy the Lutherans?

Back in 2013 we told you that then Minnesota Lutheran CEO, Mark Peterson, was pulling down a salary of $441,767.

We went to a recent audit linked on their website and here are some numbers we found (audit ending September 30, 2014):

They had total revenue of $103,135,439 and received $91,887,312 from GOVERNMENT FEES AND GRANTS.  (Go here and click on ‘financials’ to see for yourself).
That makes them 89% government funded!  That is a government agency not a charity, and surely not a ‘Christian’ charity!

The progressive ‘religious Left’ is living off of the US taxpayer!

Doing well by doing good?

Salaries and payroll accounted for $57,929,172 of your money—your tax dollars for that one year!

Jodi doesn’t pull down a salary as high as Peterson (LOL! War on women?) her predecessor did, but it is fairly substantial none-the-less as we learned from a recent Form 990.  She was compensated with $280,812 and an additional $42,495 came from related organizations (whatever that is!).

Her second in command, Kenneth Borle, made $202,087 and $33,192 (from related organizations).

They have 8 other employees making over six-figure salaries!

Go here for the others in leadership at Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota responsible for building the aggressive and demanding Muslim population of the state.
And if you are looking for more people to blame for what is happening to Minnesota, here is the Board of Directors (do you know any of them?):
Board of Directors

Greg Vandal, Chair
Nancy Rystrom, Vice Chair
Cathy Norelius, Secretary
Sue Haffield, Treasurer *
Bishop Thomas Aitken
Dan Anderson
Mike Anderson
Rev. Dr. Eric Barreto
Ann Beatty
Dr. Paul Dovre
Jon Evert
Nicole Griensewic Mickelson
Rev. John Hogenson
Rev. Dr. Rolf Jacobson
Jen Julsrud
John Mattes
Artie Miller
Joanne Negstad
Joan Wandke Nelson
Rev. Mark Skinner
Bishop Ann Svennungsen
Rev. Mari Thorkelson
Lori Wall

The main office of Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota is here (below).  It is time to let them know how you feel, to put the pressure on the organization directly responsible for disrupting St. Cloud.
Good Lutherans especially need to speak up!

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota
2485 Como Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
651.642.5990
800.582.5260

And, according to the US State Department’s handy list of contractors the St. Cloud Lutheran resettlement agency office is here:

LIRS
MN-LIRS-08: Lutheran Social Services Of Minnesota
Address:
22 Wilson Avenue Suite 110
St. Cloud, MN 56302
Phone:
320-251-7700
One more thing!  Tell Rep. Trey Gowdy what he has in store for his community if a refugee resettlement site is established in Spartanburg, SC.

See our complete archive on St. Cloud here.  And, click here, for an enormous archive on Minnesota.  See especially our earliest post (2011), and one of our top posts of all time, when we first learned of the three ‘Christian’ groups swamping Minnesota with Somalis at the behest of the US State Department.

*** An indicator that the heat is on some of these phony Christian organizations is that they are changing their names.  Note that World Relief Minnesota is now Arrive Ministries and Lutheran Social Services of New England is now Ascentria Care Alliance.

Issues of Christianity aside..

Here is Ann Corcoron’s excellent outline of her inquiry into the governmental processes involved.

Ann Corcoran

I wanted to know what was the governmental process that allowed the resettlement of refugees?

Who gave permission?

I have learned about a Federal program that is 35 years old this year - The United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees
has been choosing most of our refugees.

It is under the influence of a powerful Muslim supremacist group called “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation.”

Not surprisingly, a large number of U.S. bound refugees are coming from countries with large numbers of people who hate us: including Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and soon from Syria, just to name a few.

The U.S. State Department then distributes the refugees to 9 major Federal contractors - six of which are so-called religious charities, but - all are largely funded from The U.S. Treasury:

Church World Services (CWS)

Ethiopian Community Development Council

Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)

Hebrew Immigration Aid Society (HIAS)

International Rescue Committee (IRC)

US Committee for Refugees & Immigrants (USCRI)

Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services (LIRS)

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

World Relief Corporation (WR)

They are not passing the plate on Sundays for the one billion dollar price tag for the resettlement. And that figure does not include the extensive welfare benefits that refugees receive.

The refugees are then sent to over 190 cities and towns in the US where the 9 major contractors support 350 subcontractors.

The refugees receive help from the subcontractors for up to six months; and the subcontractor then submits paper-work to admit the relatives of the first group.

Many [Muslims] are forming cities within cities, where mosques are being built to consolidate, train and promote the Islamic supremacist doctrine called “Sharia.”

This process of Muslim colonization is called “The Hijra.”

Muhammad told his followers to migrate and spread Islam in order to dominate all the lands of the world.

He said that they were obliged to do so.

And that is exactly what they are doing now with the help and support of

The UN, The US State Department and the Christian and Jewish groups assigned to seed them throughout the country.

Your tax dollars pay for it all.

We only need to look to a troubled Europe to see the path ahead for America if we can’t stop this migration and stop it soon.

There is no reason on earth that we should have brought over 100,000 Somalis, and another 100,000 Iraqi Muslims to America…

Soon we will be resettling Syrian Muslims in large numbers..

The FBI told Congress recently that they cannot be properly screened.

If you don’t help counter the Hijra, we are, in my opinion, doomed.

Over time this migration will be more devastating to your children and grandchildren and to our country than..

More devastating than any terrorist attack could ever be.

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.