Majorityrights Central > Category: Military Matters

Yes, the North Atlantic was completely destroyed, but for a wonderful moment in time we had no Islamophobic comments on Facebook!

There are few things in politics more fulfilling than seeing greed and fear—which are not ‘bad’ emotions, it’s all about context—combine to create genuinely good performance art, a kind of art that is a work of genuine originality. That’s how it is with the Facebook censorship story, it just gets better by the day.

The law firm Jun Lawyers, which specialises in IT Law and is headed by Jun Chan-jo, has seen an opportunity for publicity and profit. It is going to be found through the fact that between Angela Merkel, Heiko Maas, Anetta Kahane, Eva-Maria Kirschsieper and Mark Zuckerberg, they have virtually no capability at all of actually policing all the ‘hate speech’ that now exists on Facebook due to the reaction of a sizeable number of German citizens to the migrant influx that Angela Merkel herself invited into Germany.

The continued existence of ‘hate speech’ all over Facebook means that the liberal government is violating its own laws and its own constitution. Since Facebook is also possibly violating those same laws, and since none of them can do a single thing about it without installing something akin to the ‘Great Firewall of China’ or the ‘Great Keyword Filter of South Korea’ —except aimed at the all-pervasive ‘Far Right hate speech’ rather than say, ‘reactionaries’, or ‘Far Left Marxists’, or ‘anarchists’—Jun Lawyers can be sure that the German legal tangle is a gift that will keep on giving. The liberal government has effectively promised to win at whack-a-mole, has made it illegal to lose, and is now finding itself unable to stop losing.

Now finding themselves trapped in a forest of the censorship laws of their own making which they are legally obligated to enforce, and with social media being used to propagate messages of ‘hate’ toward everyone and everything, the liberal-capitalist occupied German government is considering suing Facebook, the German court system is considering whether to find the German government to be in violation of its own constitution, while the Jun Lawyers firm is suing both the liberal government and Facebook simultaneously.

I would urge all ethno-nationalists out there not to be angry with Jun Chan-jo. His name will appear a lot in the media going forward, but it is prudent to regard him as the ‘Gordon Gecko’ of IT Lawyers, and to take a tolerant stance toward him. I’ve heard some unfortunate stories about people sending him hateful emails and tweets which insult him on the basis of his Korean ethnicity and so on. Please do not do this to him. It’s just business, isn’t it? Jun Chan-jo should not be regarded with hatred, he should be regarded with love, because he’s just doing his job and he’s doing it very well.

Let’s remember the relevant section of that famous speech that Gordon Gecko made in the 1987 film ‘Wall Street’:

Gordon Gekko, ‘Wall Street’, 1987:
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.

The aggregate effect of the self-serving actions of Jun Chan-jo is that he’s basically calling the liberal government and Facebook on their own bluff and forcing them to try to follow through on their own laws. He’s performing the socially useful and totally logical function of holding the liberal government and the clique of Jews who own Facebook to account for the laws that they themselves committed to. But the government can’t comprehensively follow through on these laws, because it’s operationally impossible for them to police all of the things which are being said about Muslim migrants daily on social media in Germany. All the state apparatus can really do is strike a small number of ‘offenders’ randomly, and then when this proves ineffective, it turns on itself to play internal blame-games in response to legal challenges.

Look for yourself at the circular firing-squad which has manifested:

McClatchyDC, ‘Germany considers charges against Facebook for hate speech’, 21 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

Highlights:

• Chastened by its Nazi past, Germany long ago banned incitement of racial hatred
• Refugees crisis has prompted posts that many feel violate those laws
• Posters have been charged, and Facebook officials might be

BERLIN—The anti-refugee post on Facebook by a 29-year-old Berlin woman last spring seemed little different from many of the hate-filled rants that pop up on social media sites.

“Let’s get rid of the filth,” she wrote. Then, referring to a series of arson fires that have destroyed refugee housing under construction across Germany, she continued: “many more refugee centers will burn, hopefully with the doors boarded up.”

But there was a difference between her words and many others that appear online: She was a German, posting in Germany. And while social media globally might assume a more American character of erring on the side of free speech over censorship, Germany does not share this view when it comes to hate speech.

The woman was charged with violating Germany’s hate speech law, convicted and sentenced to five years of probation. She’s not the only poster to have run afoul of the law: A 25-year-old man from the small town of Passau in Bavaria was fined 7,500 euro (about $8,500) for a Facebook post offering to deliver “a gas canister and hand grenade, for free,” to a group of asylum seekers. A 34-year-old Berlin man was fined 4,800 euro (about $5,500) for posting: “I’m in favor of reopening the gas chambers and putting the whole brood inside.”

Now, with the swelling number of refugees prompting still more such posts, German prosecutors are considering going after Facebook itself for acting as a home for posts that advocate racial hatred and violate laws against neo-Nazi speech.

German prosecutors are investigating possible charges against three Facebook managers, prompted by a complaint that they failed to act against racist comments about Europe’s refugee crisis.

The complaint came from German attorney Chan-jo Jun, of Wuerzburg. In it, he claimed to have flagged more than 60 Facebook entries that would violate German hate-speech laws. In an interview in Die Welt newspaper, he noted that the posts he flagged – some even featuring Nazi insignia and people posing while giving a Nazi salute – are strictly forbidden by German law.

But, he said, Facebook responded to his complaints by saying the content didn’t violate Facebook’s community standards, and the posts were not removed. He made copies of the posts and sent them to Facebook’s German managers by registered mail.

“We need to put an end to the arrogance with which some companies try to translate their system of values to Europe,” he said.

In the complaint he filed, he noted, “Facebook Germany encourages the dissemination of offensive, punishable content through its actions in Germany.”

Germans have complained for years about what they see as warped morality on Facebook and other U.S.-based social media sites, where nudity is strictly controlled but posters are allowed to spout hate-filled screeds that Germany outlawed after the Nazi reign of Adolf Hitler.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas recently announced that Germany would establish “a task force to combat hate speech on social media platforms, notably Facebook, and a number of social networks, including Facebook, are to take part.”

“Racist, inciting statements are inconsistent with our system of values and cannot be justified under any imaginable aspect,” he said. “One thing is clear: If Facebook gets complaints about racist and xenophobic messages that violate criminal laws, then the company must react and delete such posts quickly and reliably. . . . There must be as little space in social media for racism and xenophobia as there is on the street.”

Facebook has agreed to take part in and partially fund the task force, but for many it’s showing too little concern about a matter Germans take seriously.

Facebook has announced measures to counter hate speech. However, in the past it has also noted that the site “allowed discussions on the network to be conducted using robust diction.” Overall, German officials claim they have received word from Facebook that it prefers a policy of “discuss, not delete,” in many cases.

German news stories have quoted German Facebook policy manager Eva-Maria Kirschsieper as defending her company’s policies by noting that Facebook reaches a billion users far beyond Germany’s borders.

“It is a constant challenge to balance the interests of this diverse community and we are constantly working to adjust our policies and procedures to be even more effective and sensitive to the concerns of local communities,” she said.

Konstantin von Notz, a member of the Green party who is considered the group’s top expert on the Internet, questioned whether Facebook is following its own anti-hate speech guidelines. He noted that members of his party have been attacked on Facebook and have filed criminal charges. “Some of what is being posted not only goes against German law but also against Facebook’s own terms of business,” he said.

This week, the German tabloid Bild ran a two-page spread of nothing but hateful Facebook comments, complete with user names and profile photos. The comments were directed at the large number of refugees seeking asylum in Germany, and those who support them.

“Green pig, hang them all,” said one post directed at Claudia Roth, a pro-refugee Green politician. Another was more general: “A bullet for every Muslim and their supporters.” “Muslims are worse than cockroaches. We don’t want Islam in Germany and Austria,” read another. Another poster, identified as Silvio Bettin, asked, “Aren’t we all a little Nazi?”

The best thing that can happen is for this chaos to continue. It’s an unlimited and unwinnable censorship battle which the liberal-capitalist occupation government in Germany has plunged itself into. About 35 million migrants in total may be heading toward Europe, and Germany is refusing to permit political discussion of Angela Merkel’s monstrous open-doors policy to take place on the public political stage. So, the conversation persists on the internet, and then the liberal government chooses to include such conversation under the rubric of the enforcement of its ‘racial hatred’ censorship laws.

If the liberal occupation government wants to adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward ‘hate speech’ and if they promise to follow through on that impossible task, then I give my warmest regards and a jaunty salute to anyone who is able to engage in culture-jamming or legal-jamming actions to put that ridiculous censorship system under stress. The liberal occupation government might as well be trying to censor discussion of the weather.

To all the patriotic Germans out there, I encourage you to keep posting ‘offensive’ things, and to keep organising and engaging in street actions, and in so doing, keep jamming up the liberal censorship system.

Dutch TV subtitle: “The European Union and Turkey together will accelerate Turkey’s accession.”

Even the title of this article does not do enough to convey the scale of the stunningly disingenuous ‘negotiation’ that Angela Merkel engaged in on Sunday. It was not a negotiation, it was Merkel just taking Europe’s queen piece and both rook pieces off of the chessboard and tossing them through the window as Turkish mouths widened in grotesque delight.

As is well known, many of the migrants that are flowing into Europe at Angela Merkel’s own invitation—and because of the perverse incentives created by governments like Germany and Sweden—make their transit through Turkey before arriving in Europe. At the same time, Merkel has been facing an internal party revolt as various opportunists are taking the crisis as a chance to challenge her leadership. Some others are revolting against her because the number of migrants that their regions are being asked to accept are more than their infrastructure can ever hope to efficiently handle.

Under these pressures—particularly the pressure arising from the fact that Merkel’s concept of ‘no upper ceiling to migration’ was bound to clash with material constraints eventually—Merkel then found herself thrust into a negotiation with Turkey. The European Union had attempted to bribe Turkey with 3 billion euros, but the Turks decided that it was not enough.

So Merkel went to Turkey and offered them a faster track toward EU accession and visa-free travel, in addition to the bribe that had been previously offered.

Predictably, Erdogan and Davutoglu immediately decided to retract their side of the pseudo-informal ‘agreement’ as soon as Merkel went home. They have clarified that they actually made no promises to stop the migrants within their territory from travelling into Europe, ultimately. In fact, they have no intention of doing anything to stop the migration wave itself either:

DW, ‘Turkey demands additional EU funding to address migration’, 19 Oct 2015:

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that an agreed sum of 3 billion euros ($3.4 billion) in return for Turkey’s cooperation in stemming the flow of migrants in Europe would not be regarded as sufficient.

Speaking on Turkish television one day after German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Istanbul on Sunday, Davutoglu said that the money would come from the “IPA” fund - money already earmarked for Turkey as an EU membership candidate . He said that Turkey wanted additional cash.

The 3 billion euro IPA fund proposal is no longer on the table, as we have said we will not accept it,” Davutoglu said. “As for fresh resources, we’re talking about a 3 billion euro amount in the first stage. But we don’t want to fixate on this because the requirements may go up, and the assessment for this would need to be done annually.”

Tit-for-tat diplomacy

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday offered Turkey the prospect of support for faster progress on its bid to join the European Union as well as an accelerated path to visa-free travel for Turks. This followed the summit in Brussels last week where EU leaders had agreed on a migration “action plan” with Turkey, where the figure of 3 billion euros ($3.4 billion) had been discussed.

Chancellor Merkel on Sunday had hailed as “very promising” progress on an EU-driven “action plan” after talks in Istanbul with Davutoglu and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Both Turkish President Erdogan and Davutoglu, whose ruling AK Party faces a general election on November 1, appeared keen to avoid any impression of weakness in dealing with European nations. They said earlier the EU had only recently realised Turkey’s value in the crisis.

Davutoglu: Turkey ‘not a concentration camp’

Prime Minister Davutoglu caused further controversy on Monday, saying that his country was “not a concentration camp” and that it would not host migrants permanently to appease the EU.

“I said this to Merkel too. No one should expect Turkey to turn into a concentration camp where all the refugees stay in,” Davutoglu said.

The talks had however resulted in a “positive response” to the government’s request for visa liberalization, he said.

His comments came as the flow of people along the so-called “Balkan Route” into Europe via Turkey continued, with thousands of people streaming Monday into the Balkans, where tighter border controls forced people to sleep in freezing temperatures. More than 630,000 people have landed on Europe’s shores so far this year, most of them making risky sea crossings from Turkey to Greece.

ss/msh (Reuters, AFP)

All of those events were actually absolutely unnecessary from a straight power perspective. Why? Because, while Turkish politicians have a lot of bluster, and while they can deploy the threat of unleashing the migrants, the Turks were nevertheless negotiating from an extremely weak position.

Despite having had historical cultural connections to the regional groups to their west, south, south-east and east, Turkey has spent the past 20 years burning all of its bridges in all directions. In summary—and it is definitely a summary—Turkey’s position looks like this:

• Westward, they’ve been unable to make much of an advancement toward European integration, and still have infamously bad relations with Greece over the issue of Cyprus and a variety of other issues.


• To their south, they’ve tried to play neo-Ottomanist games and ended up with total chaos and no strategic gains whatsoever. Their only actual friend there remains—perhaps ironically—Israel, because Turkey historically shares some aspects of its military intelligence with Israel and continues to do so today. Unsurprisingly, this does not help Turkey to further its neo-Ottomanist fantasies in any way in the Middle East.


• To their south-east they are faced with an increasingly Kurdish population which is territorially coincident with the ancient land that they refer to as part of ‘Kurdistan’. By the year 2050, both Turks and Kurds will have gone through a population correction—a decline which must take place—but the asymmetric nature of that decline will be characterised by a change in the ratio of Turks and Kurds. The overall number of Kurds will have increased relative to the number of Turks, so that about 50% of the people in Turkey by then will be residing in homes where Kurdish is the first language. The geographic area where those Kurds are and will be living, is a place which also happens to potentially have a significant amount of oil play under it and comprises almost 40% of the territory of Turkey.


• To their east, Turkey had been more or less ignoring Central Asia and letting it sit in squalor until China decided to start making economic inroads there which are only becoming more integrated, at which stage Turkey made the monumental mistake of funding Uigyur Islamic terrorists in Xinjiang province to destroy Chinese infrastructure. China immediately responded by threatening to fund and arm Kurdish Marxist-Leninist terrorists to erode the territorial integrity of the Turkish state. Since Turkey did not stop funding the Islamists in Xinjiang, China seems to have gone forward with its threat, as the new presence of Chinese weapons among the PKK arsenal would indicate. Evidence of such a presence would be that a year after the warning had been given, 1690 of the machineguns and 40 of the rocket launchers that Turkey had captured from the PKK were of Chinese origin. The Turks have also recently taken to impotently complaining about how sympathetic the western media is to the PKK. Overall, the net gain for Turkey in that area has been somewhere in the range of nil.

Turkey is not some shrewd player. It’s one of the most clownish and absurd players in the world at the moment, and although it has experienced some significant economic growth internally, its foreign policy is a complete shambles and it is nowhere near to being a serious world power.

Should we really believe that Merkel is so stupid that she could not find anything to use to twist the arms of the Turks? The Turks should never have been in a position to be the ones making any demands there.

Any European negotiator who wanted to really play the game the tough way could have given a variety of responses that could twist the arms of the Turks based on the above facts, such as:

• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just don’t talk to you about EU accession ever again, until you remove the remnants of the Turkish Army from Cyprus?”


• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we cancel all the NATO events that are on the calendar concerning Turkey?”


• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we continue using the National Endowment for Democracy to assist your domestic political opponents so that they can erode your electoral powerbase and replace you with someone who will run Turkey in the way that we want?”


• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just ignore you and hedge against you demographically on a 30 year time frame, cultivating links with Kurds in the eastern part of your country so that we can encourage them to defy Ankara later and block you from having political control over a large section of your domestic energy resource base?”


• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just misplace boxes full of weapons and ammunition into the hands of the PKK? I’m sure you remember what that was like for you the last time we did that. In fact, since the PKK does so much independent illegal fundraising inside European countries, we could just stop policing them at all and see how you like that?”


• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just close the border between Turkey and the European Union, and build a giant fence surmounted by barbed wire and security cameras? The amount that it costs to take care of the migrants for a week is probably the same amount as it costs to build the fence.”

Those kind of responses from a European negotiator, would have been the correct signalling and would have likely produced a much more satisfactory response from Turkey.

Rather than doing anything like that, Merkel instead went in and sat down on a golden throne next to Erdogan, and followed the exact choreography that the architects of Erdogan’s election campaign wanted her to follow. She let Erdogan—a man who literally has been implicated in electoral fraud multiple times and is presiding over a ramshackle failure of a foreign policy—look strong, let him look competent, let him look like he was in charge, and gave him absolutely everything he wanted, absolutely for free.

No one is that absurdly fucking stupid by accident. Merkel had to have been doing that on purpose. That is the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached. It really is.

Furthermore, whose idea was it to send Merkel—a person who actually wanted the migrants to enter Europe in the first place—to have a negotiation with Turkey to try to keep the migrants out of Europe? I would love to know who was responsible for that absolutely stupid idea. Who on earth in their right mind would send Merkel to negotiate for the defence of Europe’s borders while knowing about all the pro-migration actions that she had engaged in prior to that?

Controversy ahead.

Summary: This interview was with Tomislav Sunic about the migration problem in Europe. Kumiko Oumae was hosting, standing in for Guessedworker, along with DanielS as co-host.

The issues which we covered were:

• The idea that part of the reason for the migration wave is psychological rather than strictly structural.
• Discussion on whether the words ‘migration’ or ‘crisis’ were really appropriate descriptions of what is happening.
• Discussion of weaknesses of Christianity in the face of an enemy.
• The relationship between countries in South Eastern Europe.
• Cases of religion being used as a cultural-historical identification rather than as a belief system.
• The influx of migrants and the terrorist threat posed by them to the European Union.
• The advantages which the defenders have over the invaders, given the disparity in average IQ.
• ‘Better is worse’, and how a deteriorating security situation can be a catalyst for total structural change in the case where all else fails.

I think it was a fantastic interview, I was really honoured to have Tomislav Sunic on our show, and I hope to have him back again as soon as possible. He’s really one of the best ethno-nationalist speakers alive.

What happens when WNs accept Russian news reports uncritically? They get misled, that’s what happens. Lasha Darkmoon has an article titled “America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria”. It’s based on an article which she took from Fort Russ, which was titled “Russian operation in Syria revealed the real sponsors of terrorism to the world”.

Let’s examine the core claims of Darkmoon’s Russian-derived article.

Russian claim #1:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

As soon as the Russian air force began to inflict serious blows, the Americans threw a tantrum fit. This is because ISIL militants had appealed to them for help.

Actual Reality: The Americans ‘threw a tantrum’ because the Russians were bombing everything without any concern for the balance of powers in the areas that they were hitting. This led to ISIL in fact gaining ground in some places such as Aleppo, and even involved instances where ISIL was able to induce the Russians to hit ISIL’s inter-sectarian opponents.

See here:

Guardian, ‘Isis seizes ground from Aleppo rebels under cover of Russian airstrikes’, 10 Oct 2015:

Islamic State militants have scored their most significant advances in the province of Aleppo, the closest they have come to Syria’s former commercial capital in two years, as it becomes increasingly clear that they are taking advantage of Russian airstrikes against the rest of the opposition to march into new territory.

As Russian planes continued to pound rebel forces in western Aleppo and other frontlines in the country, many of the opposition fighters who ousted Isis from the province at great cost last year found themselves pinned down and unable to halt the terror group’s largely unopposed advance towards the city at the end of last week.

“Russian planes are striking the Free Syrian Army and laying the groundwork for Daesh [Isis] control of strategic areas in Aleppo,” said a source from Tajammu al-Izzah, a moderate opposition group backed by western and Gulf states which has been hit by Russian airstrikes. “The truth is that Russia is backing Isis.”

[...]

On Friday, taking advantage of the Russian bombing of western Aleppo that has forced the rebels to reinforce their defensive lines there, Isis pivoted towards the south and within hours had taken control of a series of towns and villages to the north of the city of Aleppo, the closest it has come since it was defeated by the opposition.

“Russia entered with the excuse of fighting Daesh and has barely bombed them,” said a religious official serving with Jaysh al-Fateh, a coalition of rebels fighting the Assad government and whose fighters have been targeted by the Russian airstrikes.

“Russia did not come to fight Daesh. Why didn’t they and the American coalition prevent them from advancing in northern Aleppo when they send armoured vehicles through the open desert before everyone’s eyes?

“It is clear that both Russia and the regime are laying the groundwork for Daesh,” he added. “We have a joke here that they all have one operations room.”

[...]

The war is more complicated than Russians believe it is. Sometimes, what happens is that one Islamist group is incited to fight against another Islamist group because of competing territorial claims, or doctrinal disagreements, or because they are a front for a state-backed militia group which is using theological justifications for creating infighting within a particular sect. Because of this, radical Sunni Muslims can sometimes be fighting other radical Sunni Muslims.

If Russia simply gallivants into the middle of that situation and indiscriminately bombs everything that looks like an Islamist, they might in fact be upsetting the balance of terrorism—for lack of a better way of putting it—in a way that could unintentionally lead to ISIL gains.

Which appears to be precisely what the Russians have caused with their ham-fisted approach.

Russian claim #2:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

More than 50 aircraft were transported to Syria. More than 2000 people were transported in transport aircraft to Syria. And not one of the vaunted NATO radars in Turkey, Bulgaria or the other countries in the region were efficient enough to record all this activity!

Actual Reality: Even civilian observers were able to see the movement of Russian aircraft.

Here’s an example:

The Aviationist, ‘Latest imagery shows 28 Russian aircraft (12 Su-24s, 12 Su-25s and 4 Su-30s) on the ground at airbase in Syria’, 22 Sep 2015:

A satellite image has finally unveiled the whole Russian Air Force contingent made of 28 combat planes deployed to Syria: taken on Sept. 21, the photograph shows 4 Su-30SMs, 12 Su-25SMs and 12 Su-24s lined up, in the open air, along runway 17L at al-Assad International Airport, near Latakia, in western Syria.

[...]

And another example:

The Aviationist, ‘Six Russian Su-34 Fullback bomber have just arrived in Syria. And this is the route they have likely flown to get there.’, 29 Sep 2015:

Six Sukhoi Su-34 aircraft have eventually arrived at Latakia to join the Russian contingent already there.

Images allegedly shot around the al-Assad International Airport clearly show one Russian Fullback about to land at the airbase in western Syria where 28 Russian aircraft have arrived last week.

@ain92ru @pfc_joker @oryxspioenkop They arrived! pic.twitter.com/JCi4bIT4F5

— LuftwaffeAS (@LuftwaffeAS) 28 Settembre 2015

One of the photos taken from the ground shows the six aircraft trailing what seems to be an airliner over Idlib: the larger plane is probably a Russian Air Force Tu-154.

Said to be an airliner/transporter accompanied with 6 fighters crossing over Hama country side pic.twitter.com/cPbjVZssyi

— LuftwaffeAS (@LuftwaffeAS) 28 Settembre 2015

Interestingly, a Russian Air Force Tu-154 using callsign RFF7085 could be tracked online on Flightradar24 during its flight to Latakia on Sept. 28, likely exposing the route followed by the six Su-34s trailing their accompanying Tu-154.

As the below image shows, the aircraft flew in international airspace over the Caspian Sea, to Iran and entered Syrian airspace after flying over northern Iraq: did the Su-34s have all the required diplomatic clearances to fly north of Baghdad or did they simply “sneak” into Syria by hiding under the cover of the transport plane?

Hard to say.

Last week, US officials said that the first 28 Russian combat planes hid under the radar signature on the larger transport aircraft, in an attempt to avoid detection but there are chances that the flights had all the required clearances from the Iraqi Air Traffic Control agencies and were conducted as a standard long-range ferry flight: one tanker/airlifter, using radio and transponder, supporting multiple fast jets.

H/T to @LuftwaffeAS and @obretix. Image credit: Flightradar24.com.

If even random civilians on the internet can see it, that’s probably a sign that their operations are not invisible, and are in fact being meticulously recorded—by civilians. At that point, whether NATO is or is not watching, becomes frankly irrelevant.

Russian claim #3:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

US and ISIL (or ISIS) have close ties [...]

This statement seems to be based on a photograph that purports to show Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi with John McCain.

Actual Reality: The man sitting with John McCain is not Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.

I’m sure you can all agree that the Russians were not even trying with that one. I’ll be charitable and assume that’s their idea of a joke. The man with John McCain obviously looks nothing like Al-Baghdadi. He is a member of the Northern Storm Brigade, a group which is fighting against ISIL.

Russian claim #4:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

There is no perfidy here. We alerted everyone in advance what we were about to do. This included Netanyahu.

Actual Reality: That is true, the Russians did inform Israel in advance. They decided to be courteous to Israel.  It’s a really stupid thing to do, given that Netanyahu has no particular reason to keep any of the information secret from ISIL, as it is in Israel’s geostrategic interest to let ISIL carry on wreaking havoc on Syria.

Recall this fact:

The Algemeiner, ‘Israeli Officials: We’d Prefer Al-Qaeda-Run Syria to an Assad Victory’, 04 Jun 2013:

[...]

According to Israel Hayom, senior Israeli officials were quoted as saying that “al-Qaeda control over Syria would be preferable to a victory by Assad over the rebels.”

Officials believe that an Assad victory would strengthen Iran, as a weakened Syrian regime would become more reliant on the Islamic Republic. The Iran-Hezbollah-Syria axis would thus become an even greater threat to Israel, the officials said.

“Assad is now Iran,” the officials said, according to Israel Hayom. “Any of these groups would be less problematic for Israel than an Assad regime that is a puppet of Iran,” the officials were quoted as saying.

It’s anyone’s guess as to whether Israel’s calculus on that issue has changed since 2013. By “any of these groups”, that can mean Al-Qaeda which they mentioned, but it could also mean they’d be okay with letting ISIL run around doing things too, because “any” means “any”, right? Who can know for sure?

Yet Russia does this, regardless:

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, ‘Russia informed Israel ahead of airstrikes in Syria on ISIS’, 30 Sep 2015:

[...]

Russian officials reportedly contacted their Israeli defense establishment counterparts about an hour before the attack, Israel’s Channel 2 reported. Russian government officials also contacted Yossi Cohen, the national security adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office, Haaretz reported, citing unnamed senior Israeli officials.

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Putin in Moscow to discuss the security threats to Israel from Syria. During the meeting, the two leaders agreed to coordinate between the Israeli and Russian militaries in order to avoid conflicts over Syria. Putin also told Netanyahu that Syria is not in a position to open a second front against Israel.

[...]

So in summary, the only one of those Russian claims which is true, happens to be the most disastrously idiotic one in practice. Apparently the Russians have never heard the phrase ‘loose lips sink ships’, since the loud-mouthed Russians seem to have been perfectly happy to give Israel a whole 60 minutes of warning ahead of each stage of their activities so far.

NATO on the other hand does not make a habit of giving Israel that kind of information, due to various reasons related to Israel’s bad behaviour in the past, which I’m sure that all Majorityrights readers are aware of.

Gaels were expropriated from the land between 1800 and 1830.

What is going on?

Much has been said in recent weeks about a man named Peter Sutherland. Sutherland is the United Nations Special Representative on migration, and he is an international businessman and former Attorney General of Ireland who has served in a variety of business and political roles. He was appointed to the European Commission in 1985 and had responsibility for competition policy. He was the Chairman of AIB (Allied Irish Banks) from 1989 until 1993. He was non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International until June 2015. In 2010, he was appointed co-chair of an Experts Group, to report on the priority actions to be taken to stave off protectionism and to boost global trade.

Sutherland is also keenly pro-European, which doesn’t sound like a bad thing until you realise what he means by that. A person would think that it’s pretty simple, after all, when talking about the ‘European Union’, the word ‘European’ is literally in the name. But no, Sutherland is pro-European, or ‘a Europhile’, in the sense that he supports the institutions of the European Union, but he does not support the ethnic genetic interests of those who live under those institutions.

Sutherland is a person who believes that the Arab Spring should have been considered as a chance to begin ‘weaving together’ Europe with North Africa and the Middle East, population-wise. What he of course means in practice is not—not ever—a colonisation of North Africa and the Middle East by Europeans, but rather, an invitation for literally unlimited migration from North Africa and the Middle East into the European Union to displace Europeans.

Objectively speaking, that is the expropriation of European peoples from their own lands, it is a displacement. Sutherland however entreats Europeans to think of it from a humanitarian and empathetic point of view. For example, it was Peter Sutherland who described the makeshift refugee camps in Calais, as ‘an indictment on society’, and asked the British and French governments to do more to assist the Middle Eastern and North African migrants.

Previously, profiteering

For the Sutherland family name, there is a long history of humanitarian and empathetic points of view being expressed by its members, when behind the hand-wringing and the appeals to a universal morality, behind the cloak of respectability and quasi-aristocratic pretensions, lurks the dagger of the most vicious blood-treason and abject profiteering which can only be expected from business-people of their calibre—a tendency which is by no means diminished but rather is reinforced by their Christian identity.

It was in January 1853, that the Stafford House Assembly of Ladies issued its call to their counterparts in North America, to ask them to consider the plight of black people in the Southern states of the United States, who had been enslaved for so long and were, in their view, in need of sympathy. They were consciousness-raising, making a call to action, and so on. That was a declaration that took place when Stafford House was under the presidency of the Duchess of Sutherland, who—much as it was in fashion then as it is in fashion now—was giving an object lesson on how easy it always is for liberals to show concern for people thousands of miles away, while ignoring the suffering of their own people close by—particularly when that suffering is caused by their own ‘humanitarian’ hand.

The whole history of the primitive accumulation that has led to the appearance of the wealth and prestige of the name Sutherland, and of other names of that type from Scotland and Ireland, is really in fact a history of the expropriation of the Gael people from their own lands, and their destruction at the hands of blood-traitors.

A quick sketch of history will be needed in order for things to become clear. In the 1100s, when the Danelaw was encroaching onto Scotland, the resistance came from the ‘Great Man of Sutherland’, a progenitor whose clan had defended him from all enemies, foreign and domestic, Scottish or Danish. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which installed the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau as King, due to the economic changes and the shift in political attitudes at the time, the internecine fighting among Gaels become less frequent, and at the same time, the propensity for Anglo-Dutch wars to erupt was reduced to zero. These things may not be the only factors, but they may comprise part of the reasons for why London was able to take the time to better integrate the Gael clans into the British military establishment, to incentivise stability by inducing these ostensibly different forms of social organisation to mutually support each other in Scotland.

The clan system of the Gaels was an array of social relations based around a progenitor and his or her progeny, which is to say, it is a relationship delimited by ties of blood and proximity. The district in which a clan operated was the land from which it gained its livelihood, much like how it was in what Marxists call ‘the Asiatic mode of production’, because it existed in a similar form in China, Japan, Korea, and various parts of South East Asia, in the pre-feudal era. It’s also comparable to the systems in some parts of the Americas before the appearance of Columbus.

It was basically a pre-feudal system of relations.

At the head of the clan was the progenitor’s family, which had a leader. The whole of the clan was like a system of blood-related family circles under them, the system could not be said to be a system of private property, because all the land was held as common land, under the military command of the progenitor. The progenitor could increase or decrease the allotment of land to subordinates as necessary, perhaps on a whim, or perhaps to fit a particular need. Under the family of the progenitor, were soldiers that administered regions, and under them were subalterns who managed towns and hamlets, and under all of them were the peasants who co-operated with the system in exchange for the benefits of a common defence perimeter and which was cemented by ties of blood.

Without an explicit legal system that could describe or allocate private property, it would be impossible to arbitrate land ownership in any way at that time. However, tradition and rank would mean that someone would have the largest influence, and the family of the progenitor, the leader in particular, would be the person who would ultimately have the final say on what would or would not be happening. This may seem benign at first, but when brought into interaction with a system that does have a concept of private property and the concept of a salary or a wage, it can potentially produce a deadly transformation which can lead to the clan’s destruction.

The destruction

As all services were gradually transformed into contract-based exchanges, the leader of the family of the progenitor began to increasingly take on the role of a landlord toward the soldiers, the soldiers in turn acting like farmers toward the peasants, and the peasants themselves becoming transformed into something like sharecroppers on the land that they used to call their own.

It would be in the early 1800s that the stab in the back was to come, and it came from one of the families of the progenitors in the form of the arbitrary and violent transformation of the clan’s common property into the private property of the leader, who could then dispose of it and its contents in any way that he or she desired, backed by government-sponsored force, which then resulted in armed conflict almost like a civil war.

Karl Marx—yes, seriously—explains with great accuracy what happened after that:

Karl Marx, Das Kapital Volume One, ‘Chapter Twenty-Seven: Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land’, 1867:

[...]

The advance made by the 18th century shows itself in this, that the law itself becomes now the instrument of the theft of the people’s land, although the large farmers make use of their little independent methods as well. [15] The parliamentary form of the robbery is that of Acts for enclosures of Commons, in other words, decrees by which the landlords grant themselves the people’s land as private property, decrees of expropriation of the people. Sir F. M. Eden refutes his own crafty special pleading, in which he tries to represent communal property as the private property of the great landlords who have taken the place of the feudal lords, when he, himself, demands a “general Act of Parliament for the enclosure of Commons” (admitting thereby that a parliamentary coup d’état is necessary for its transformation into private property), and moreover calls on the legislature for the indemnification for the expropriated poor. [16]

[...]

The stoical peace of mind with which the political economist regards the most shameless violation of the “sacred rights of property” and the grossest acts of violence to persons, as soon as they are necessary to lay the foundations of the capitalistic mode of production, is shown by Sir F. M. Eden, philanthropist and Tory to boot. The whole series of thefts, outrages, and popular misery, that accompanied the forcible expropriation of the people, from the last third of the 15th to the end of the 18th century, lead him merely to the comfortable conclusion: “The due proportion between arable land and pasture had to be established. During the whole of the 14th and the greater part of the 15th century, there was one acre of pasture to 2, 3, and even 4 of arable land. About the middle of the 16th century the proportion was changed of 2 acres of pasture to 2, later on, of 2 acres of pasture to one of arable, until at last the just proportion of 3 acres of pasture to one of arable land was attained.”

In the 19th century, the very memory of the connexion between the agricultural labourer and the communal property had, of course, vanished. To say nothing of more recent times, have the agricultural population received a farthing of compensation for the 3,511,770 acres of common land which between 1801 and 1831 were stolen from them and by parliamentary devices presented to the landlords by the landlords?

[...]

The last process of wholesale expropriation of the agricultural population from the soil is, finally, the so-called clearing of estates, i.e., the sweeping men off them. All the English methods hitherto considered culminated in “clearing.” As we saw in the picture of modern conditions given in a former chapter, where there are no more independent peasants to get rid of, the “clearing” of cottages begins; so that the agricultural labourers do not find on the soil cultivated by them even the spot necessary for their own housing. But what “clearing of estates” really and properly signifies, we learn only in the promised land of modern romance, the Highlands of Scotland. There the process is distinguished by its systematic character, by the magnitude of the scale on which it is carried out at one blow (in Ireland landlords have gone to the length of sweeping away several villages at once; in Scotland areas as large as German principalities are dealt with), finally by the peculiar form of property, under which the embezzled lands were held.

The Highland Celts were organised in clans, each of which was the owner of the land on which it was settled. The representative of the clan, its chief or “great man,” was only the titular owner of this property, just as the Queen of England is the titular owner of all the national soil. When the English government succeeded in suppressing the internecine wars of these “great men,” and their constant incursions into the Lowland plains, the chiefs of the clans by no means gave up their time-honored trade as robbers; they only changed its form. On their own authority they transformed their nominal right into a right of private property, and as this brought them into collision with their clansmen, resolved to drive them out by open force. “A king of England might as well claim to drive his subjects into the sea,” says Professor Newman. [25] This revolution, which began in Scotland after the last rising of the followers of the Pretender, can be followed through its first phases in the writings of Sir James Steuart [26] and James Anderson. [27] In the 18th century the hunted-out Gaels were forbidden to emigrate from the country, with a view to driving them by force to Glasgow and other manufacturing towns. [28]

As an example of the method [29] obtaining in the 19th century, the “clearing” made by the Duchess of Sutherland will suffice here. This person, well instructed in economy, resolved, on entering upon her government, to effect a radical cure, and to turn the whole country, whose population had already been, by earlier processes of the like kind, reduced to 15,000, into a sheep-walk. From 1814 to 1820 these 15,000 inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically hunted and rooted out. All their villages were destroyed and burnt, all their fields turned into pasturage. British soldiers enforced this eviction, and came to blows with the inhabitants. One old woman was burnt to death in the flames of the hut, which she refused to leave. Thus this fine lady appropriated 794,000 acres of land that had from time immemorial belonged to the clan. She assigned to the expelled inhabitants about 6,000 acres on the sea-shore — 2 acres per family. The 6,000 acres had until this time lain waste, and brought in no income to their owners. The Duchess, in the nobility of her heart, actually went so far as to let these at an average rent of 2s. 6d. per acre to the clansmen, who for centuries had shed their blood for her family.

The whole of the stolen clanland she divided into 29 great sheep farms, each inhabited by a single family, for the most part imported English farm-servants. In the year 1835 the 15,000 Gaels were already replaced by 131,000 sheep. The remnant of the aborigines flung on the sea-shore tried to live by catching fish. They became amphibious and lived, as an English author says, half on land and half on water, and withal only half on both. [30]

But the brave Gaels must expiate yet more bitterly their idolatry, romantic and of the mountains, for the “great men” of the clan. The smell of their fish rose to the noses of the great men. They scented some profit in it, and let the sea-shore to the great fishmongers of London. For the second time the Gaels were hunted out. [31]

There is nothing that I can add to that.

Nothing is new about what is happening now, compared to what was happening back then. Not only is the same kind of economic structure being used to carry out the destruction as was being used in the 1800s, but furthermore the very name of Sutherland has reappeared, it has reappeared as though to flaunt itself in the face of the people of the British Isles.

A new decision

Last time the great blood-traitors were able to take you down the path that they wanted—a whole ethnic group was effectively destroyed and scattered across the earth.

Now they come again, under the same names to re-invite you down the same path.

My question to all European peoples is this: Will you let them take you again?

Let’s build a good future for all regions!

Overview

The main points covered in this article are:

• Broad agreement on the TPP has been reached.
• The TPP actually does not incentivise mass migration, it is part of a process which is empowering people to live and work in their own lands.
• The TPP is part of a trend of ongoing economic development in South East Asia, Central America and South America, which is concomitant with raising wages in those areas.
• Regional imbalance is one of the core components of global economic crisis, which can be remedied by enabling people to actually buy the products they produce.
• The advent of a multipolar world means that global ideological hegemony can no longer be easily held by one regional group.
• Unlike the disastrous case of NAFTA, it is in fact strategically sound for all ethno-regionalists to endorse the TPP.

It is written with the intent of conveying the necessary information in the shortest amount of time. Read more beneath the fold.

READ MORE...

Juncker: Migrant quotas must be ‘compulsory’
           

By Eszter Zalan
BRUSSELS, 9. Sep, 12:01
https://euobserver.com/migration/130181

The European Commission is proposing the emergency relocation of 120,000 migrants across Europe from Greece, Italy and Hungary, the EU executive’s president Jean-Claude Juncker announced in a speech in Strasbourg on Wednesday (9 September), adding it “has to be done in a compulsory way.”

In his first State of the Union address to the European Parliament, Juncker said: “Addressing the refugee crisis is a matter of humanity and human dignity, for Europe [it is] also a matter of historical fairness.”

“Action is what is needed,” he noted, citing historical examples from Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Spanish fleeing for their lives in previous crises.

He called on EU ministers of justice and home affairs to adopt the proposal on September 14 for the relocation of a total of 160,000 migrants.

Juncker said he hoped that everyone would be on board this time.

A relocation plan, presented by the Commission for 40,000 migrants in May, was only agreed upon on a voluntary basis. The plan subsequently fell far short of the target.

“Italy, Greece, and Hungary cannot be left alone to cope with the enormous challenge,” Juncker added.

He recalled that 500,000 people have made their way into Europe so far this year, and pointed out that this number represents only 0.11 percent of the total EU population.

“Winter is approaching. Do we really want families sleeping in railway stations?”, Juncker asked.

Besides the emergency relocation measure, Juncker announced that the European Commission is proposing a permanent relocation mechanism, which “will allow Europe to deal with crisis more swiftly in the future”.

The Luxembourgish politician also announced that the Commission wants to turn Frontex, its border control agency in Warsaw, into a proper external border control and coast guard force.

He said the passport-free travel zone, Schengen, must be protected.

“Schengen will not be abolished under the mandate of this commission,” Juncker said.

He said the Commission plans to set up a Trust Fund of €1.8 billion to help Africa tackle the root causes of migration, and called on all EU members to pitch in.

Other measures include the review of the so-called Dublin system, which stipulates that people must claim asylum in the state in which they first enter the EU, and lays out a common list of safe countries of origin to process economic migrants more swiftly.

Juncker said Europe needs to open legal channels of migration.

“We are an ageing continent, migration must change from a problem, to a well managed resource,” he said, adding that asylum-seekers should be allowed to work while awaiting the completion of their asylum process.

Juncker announced that the Commission will present a common refugee and asylum policy in early 2016, and reiterated that member states need to adhere to existing common asylum mechanisms.

“It is a matter of credibility,” he said, adding that, before the summer, the Commission launched 32 proceedings to force EU members to uphold European standards and that more investigations are under way.

MR is ethno-nationalist; I have always been against the EU, for its corruption and control by our enemies.

However, since something like The EU would be ideal and there are likely to be structures, forces, friendly forces allied and people within The EU that will be on our side and can potentially be wrested in alliance of our coordinated ethno-nationalist interests, we are willing to entertain what is an admittedly novel position - an optimistic position, suspending disbelief that some of its elements, structures and people may be brought into service of our ethno-nationalist interests - ideally, an EU type coordinating structure in its entirety, which did not interfere with nativist national maintenance and would facilitate our coordination against non-European antagonists.

It does make logical sense as European ethnonationalists have common interests, are operating on the basis of natural self interests, are therefore aligned with the normal interests of even some of those with power, would have regional interests (region = EU region) that are interrelated with geo-political interests that are being interfered with by middle-Easterners (interfering there and here), African bio-power and population explosion, and that our national and regional interests could have symbiotic, allied interests with Asian nations and regionalism as well, that could be coordinated through an EU type structure’s regional management.

                                                                                                                                                                          - Daniel
                ...................................................

There was a trading dhow on this flag for a good reason.

Summary

Christians and liberals neither understand the threat environment nor do they have the inner motive energies that can be harnessed for the war against Islamism. A new type of European consciousness that completely rejects and opposes the semitic god, will have to manifest if Europeans are going to be able to continue to contribute meaningfully to the defence of global trade routes on which they and their partners depend in order that their societies can flourish, and for the defence of the European peoples in their homelands. Wealth is not an end in itself, wealth is a means to an end, in the same sense that a person driving a car needs to fill up at the service station before attempting their journey.

“Pure philanthropy is very well in its way, but philanthropy plus five percent is a good deal better.” 
— Cecil John Rhodes.

That sounds about right to me.

Once upon a Time in Eurasia

It is said among traders and among contractors that we won’t laugh unless we’re profiting, and that we won’t cry until we’re completely bankrupt. It’s a good saying. Of course, this is only a rationalisation of a feeling that is completely natural in every way, one which in earlier times in human history would not have needed to be enunciated by anyone. These kinds of sentiments are taking people back to the past, even though they are very modern-sounding expressions. If you think about it you’ll realise that this is a motivational logic that applies in almost every honest expression of the relations of production.

There are some modern phrases that lack the appropriate level of nuance, though. For example, when speaking of time scales growing longer or shorter, people will say that time is money. Money of course being an indication of a promise to do productive work.

In agrarian times long past, the phrase ‘time is money’, would have had a slightly different meaning. Rather than speaking of how fast a task is completed, it instead would have been a reference to the appropriateness of the timing of the actions. It wasn’t about ‘punctuality’. It was about instinctively knowing when to act, being able to skip some of the rationalisation process through an intuition that is hardwired into one’s alleles. The people sensed when it would be most appropriate to take an action, and they did it. If it required leadership, then the leader sensed when to harness the motive energies of the people and then did so. The sense of ‘time’ was entirely different from the sense of ‘time’ that presently exists. Time was seen as a cycle that spiralled upwards on each of its turns. When a person would participate in seasonal festivals, re-enacting the same stages over and over as the wheel of the seasons turned, re-enacting the deeds of the past, that person would no longer be in ‘profane time’, but would instead be immediately and—literally—magically taken back to the ‘sacred time’, the foundational and primordial story around which that society ontologically is founded.

And then came the Abrahamic monotheists to disrupt everything. They set human beings against their own senses and against their own intuition by emphasising a false distinction between mind and body. They created a separation between the people and the land that they evolved on. They were not the only ones to attempt this, but particularly in Europe and the Near East, it is impossible to talk about this issue without actually pointing out that Abrahamic religion is a central factor to the process of the alienation of people from themselves and their dispossession from their own land.

The Christian church twisted the minds of the European peoples, turning the mechanisms of their own survival instincts against themselves. Islam also did the same from without, it attacked people for the sake of accomplishing the same purposes, and these are essentially the same phenomenon, all branching from Judaism. All the expressions of Middle Eastern monotheism spring up in the physical world from the after-effects of a desertification event that occurred in the Middle East and North Africa about 4000 years ago, an event which a priestly class seized upon so as to cement their control. Those population groups then tried by every means possible, to impose their warped social institutions and practices onto the neighbouring populations.

Europeans struggled, for centuries, to succeed at living fulfilling lives not because of Christianity, but rather, despite Christianity. But at long last, the European continent has begun to shed the vestiges of Christianity. Since about the early 1970s, Christianity has been on a steady decline in Europe, less and less people are finding it to be convincing than ever. And for a moment, perhaps it appeared that this would be the end of the story. But it is not the end. It could not be allowed to end so easily, it seems. Instead, what has happened is that Islam has inflicted itself onto the continent as yet another wave of semitic religious assault. It is as though there is a malicious force out there which does not want you to be free, it’s as if there is something out there which wants to enslave you all.

That is only intended to be a very loose description of what has been happening, consider it like a loose narrative which will be expanded on at a different time. It should however be enough—for now—to give a general idea of what viewpoint I’m taking here.

Shaking the Kaleidoscope

Being able to conceive of this as a fight that has been going on for thousands of years is something that is crucial to being able to understand the most recent assault wave that is taking place.

The European Union is presently in a situation where the breakdown of law and order in Libya and the failure to re-establish the rule of law in that territory has led to a 70% increase in the number of Islamic fundamentalist groups operating in that area. Furthermore, the inability of the European Union to impose border controls from the Libyan side of the border, and the complete disintegration of the system of border controls that Libya used to use to stem the flow of migrants from East and Central Africa across trafficking routes into Southern Europe, has led to a massive increase in migration heading toward the European Union. At the same time, various governments have enacted laws that act as financial incentives for economic migrants to try to risk their lives to enter the European Union illegally, and has in turn facilitated the expansion of already-existing trafficking networks who are able to make exorbitant profits from the trade in human beings. This has in turn enabled the traffickers to expand their operations and become more sophisticated.

Migrants are also flowing from Syria and Iraq, along multiple routes that lead into Europe. Some of those people are fleeing persecution at the hands of ISIL because the leaders of the North Atlantic have not yet shown the political courage to commit themselves to ground war in Mesopotamia to undo the damage that has been done by the rise of ISIL.

At the centre of all of this, is now ISIL, which intends to graduate into being able to carry out strikes inside Europe by sending its operatives to form terrorist cells, which would be included among the economic migrants and asylum seekers, and who would be able to acquire their weapons through weapons smuggling networks which have existed in Central Asia and the Balkans since at least the late 1980s and are still intact.

As is clearly obvious, the threat involved for Europe is extremely severe. This is warfare against a foreign enemy that fights in new and inventive ways to harm the interests of peoples of around the world by attacking targets both foreign and domestic. As the line between foreign and domestic targets is blurred—after all, what is the functional difference between a trading house being attacked domestically, and a shipping port or an oil services office being attacked overseas—so too the line between foreign policy and domestic policy is blurred as a result of this, and as a consequence the line between policing and warfare becomes very thin. And furthermore, in a highly integrated set of national economies, intelligence collected by one country might be more useful to a partner country than it is to the country that actually collected it, meaning that policing and intelligence have increasingly become just as supranational as warfare has become under the NATO framework.

Unfortunately, the domestic appearance of the conflict has led to many misunderstandings about what the fundamental nature of this conflict really is. Many people who are skeptical of the severity of the threat, like to argue that terrorism is ‘a tactic and not an enemy’, and that somehow this means that all of these could be handled as a police matter within individual member states of the European Union. They do this because they took the term ‘War on Terror’ literally, rather than as a piece of political rhetoric, and didn’t remember that what it actually is called is ‘Overseas Contingency Operations’. We are not actually ‘fighting terror’ in the sense that it is commonly understood. We’re protecting lines of supply and hard assets from interference by hostile Islamic state or Islamic non-state actors which happen to frequently employ terrorism as a tactic. The ‘War on Terror’ is an umbrella, it’s a toolbox which is tailored for dealing with the challenges of the post-Cold War environment and for tying off loose ends that were left untied. It’s a toolbox full of tools that can be used to manage disorder and keep it at bay.

We are not at war with every single group in the world that happens to use terrorism as a tactic. We’re at war with those which threaten the interests of the North Atlantic and those of its global defence and trade partners.

There are three things that make the war against Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups, as well as ISIL in particular, different from criminal investigations into organised crime or measures taken by police to tackle domestic social problems. Firstly, the Islamists are not seeking purely to accrue gains for a syndicate. They have explicitly geopolitical objectives, namely, that they would like the states of the North Atlantic and their partners to abandon all of their enterprises in the Middle East. Their purpose is not solely to make money for a narrow clique of individuals, but rather, to in fact stymie the development of productive forces by accruing the power to deny us access to natural resources or to otherwise interfere with shipping. Secondly, these people have shown that they are willing and able to create events that are both violent and spectacular, and cause massive property damage to hard assets to such an extent that it cannot be categorised as crime but in fact is plainly visible to all as an act of war. This is something that they themselves are willing to acknowledge and even boast of. Thirdly, the Islamists are a completely foreign ideology which finds its safe havens outside the North Atlantic, and is a culturally foreign threat in the sense that Islam is not European, and Islamists consider themselves to be at war against European society on the most fundamental level.

Still others have made criticisms talking about how it is ‘un-European’ to detain people for effectively indefinite periods in clandestine detention facilities, and even that having intelligence services being patched into the processing of asylum seekers, is ‘un-European’. We’ve also seen recently that many politicians seem happy to hang up signs marked “All Refugees Welcome”, as though anyone seeking to cross borders in the middle of a 14-year long war is supposed to be regarded as completely non-suspicious.

What is the usual rationale that is taken toward detention of wartime combatants? The obvious purpose of wartime detention, has historically been to prevent the detained individual from returning to the battlefield to take up arms against us again. Normally, detainees are released after the formal cessation of hostilities. Therefore, given that this is a war, those who were detained at some point over the past 14 years, should be able to be detained for the entire duration of the ‘War on Terror’, which is to say, so long as Overseas Contingency Operations are being carried out against Islamic groups. Since it is difficult to determine when that time might actually come, it makes sense to me that an enemy combatant picked up on the battlefield in the ‘War on Terror’ can indeed rationally be held for what is effectively ‘indefinitely’, but that would only be because the enemy refuses to surrender, not because anyone in the North Atlantic necessarily has any explicit desire to detain someone without trial ‘forever’. The so-called ‘indefinite detention’ was just inherent to the logic of events which unfolded.

One of the most unfortunate things is how people have not processed or understood the idea that making all of these things illegal would also reduce flexibility and make the North Atlantic entirely too predictable in its behaviour. Having some ambiguity can actually be a good thing sometimes.

Failure to Understand the Threat Environment

Now we see liberals doing this:

Financial Times, ‘Germany braced to receive 800,000 asylum seekers’, 19 Aug 2015:
Berlin has said it expects to receive a record 800,000 asylum seekers this year, more than the entire EU combined in 2014, laying bare the scale of the biggest refugee crisis to face the continent since the second world war.

If the latest official projection released on Wednesday is borne out, it would be nearly twice as high as Germany’s previous record for asylum claims, set during the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1992.

Interior minister Thomas de Maizière warned that the Schengen zone, which allows passport-free travel across much of mainland Europe, could not be maintained unless EU states agreed to share asylum seekers.

The 800,000 figure — which represents about 1 per cent of Germany’s population and is a sharp increase on an earlier estimate of 450,000 — is one of the starkest signs yet of the extent of the migrant crisis facing Europe, as thousands of refugees fleeing war in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and poverty in Africa stream into the continent.

[...]

And:

SKY News, ‘Germany: ‘No Limit’ To Refugees We’ll Take In’, 05 Sep 2015:
Chancellor Angela Merkel has said there is no legal limit to the number of asylum seekers Germany will take in, with at least 800,000 expected this year alone.

Mrs Merkel was speaking as thousands of exhausted refugees were bussed from Hungary into Austria, with most thought to be en route to Germany.

German police said at least 2,000 people had arrived at Munich railway station so far, with up to 7,000 expected by nightfall.

The German Chancellor told the Funke consortium of newspapers: “The right to political asylum has no limits on the number of asylum seekers.”

[...]

Many are attracted by its economic prosperity, comparatively liberal asylum laws and generous benefits system.

Mrs Merkel has insisted Berlin can cope with the record-breaking influx without raising taxes, or risking its goal of a balanced budget.

She said Germany’s strong economic position meant it was able to cope with such “unexpected tasks” as presented by Europe’s worst migration crisis since the Second World War.

Nevertheless, a number of German cities have been struggling to process newly arrived asylum seekers and to meet the demand for additional housing.

Mrs Merkel’s governing coalition is due to meet on Sunday to agree a series of measures to ease the crisis, including cutting red tape to allow the construction of new asylum shelters, speeding up asylum procedures and increasing funds for federal states and towns.

[...]

It’s clear that liberals are not capable of selecting policy preferences that are suitable to the threat environment that Europe faces, nor are they able to understand that this is fourth generation warfare and that security needs to be everywhere because the fighting is asymmetrical and the force composition of the enemy includes ‘civilians’. The enemy organises in Mesopotamia and seeks to control cells within Europe’s borders, and they also seek to radicalise 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants inside Europe through the internet. In the present social media environment, it is extremely difficult to monitor, much less control, the sheer volume of material that is out there for them to interact with or consume.

There are three emergent phenomena among young jihadists in Europe that are becoming more prevalent since the start of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’.

The first phenomenon is that there is an increase in training and sophistication. Jihadists have been able to organise explosives training for European Muslims, they’ve been able to gain combat experience in the wars in Syria and Libya and Iraq, and have absorbed some of the best practices for urban combat as a result of having operated in that kind of environment. Many of them would by now have more hours of experience fighting gun battles than the police in many states in the North Atlantic tend to have.

The second phenomenon is that there is shift to recruitment from the deprived areas of Europe which would usually be characterised by ghettoes and inner city gangs. For many of the recruits, their movement into the ranks of ISIL is just like graduating from one form of ‘gang activity’ to another, but of course only in the limited sense that they are already used to breaking the law and already have a disrespect for the societies that they are living in, and so can be quite amenable to carrying out violent acts toward police officers and civilians in European countries. The pre-Arab Spring pattern was one characterised by Islamists who had become radicalised. This recent phenomenon now adds to that criminals who have become Islamised and graduate into becoming enemy combatants. Their initial revolt against society would have been characterised as anti-social behaviour, but they have now become Islamised and seek to direct that behaviour toward a ‘larger purpose’.

The third phenomenon is the broadening of prison gang recruitment outreach by Islamist groups. Given that many of the demographics that are emblematic of Islamic migration into Europe have a higher rate of criminal offending than the native population, it is only natural that prisons would become jihadist recruitment grounds. The narrative that they are being given is a combination of a guilt narrative and a victim narrative paired together. The recruiters would sympathise with the plight of the prisoner by telling them that they are members of a downtrodden group and that in order to survive they had been ‘forced’ to the margins of society to become criminals. At the same time, the recruiters would also impress on the prisoner that being a criminal is still ‘a sin’ because the Qu’ran and the Hadiths admonish Muslims to obey the law of the land that they are living in unless they happen to be engaged in jihad against that land. They are then offered ‘redemption’ on the condition that they would leverage the skillsets and contacts that they made in the criminal world to serve the ‘larger purpose’ of waging jihad.

With all of those things in mind, the fact that someone would want to massively increase migration into Europe from the very same zones in the south where all of this is based, is truly breathtaking to consider. Angela Merkel and the rest of the liberal political class in continental Europe seem to have no problems whatsoever with taking over 800,000 new people all at once over an extremely short period of time, and they probably don’t intend to stop there.

See for example:

Spiegel Online, ‘Top German Immigration Official on Influx of Syrian Refugees’, 31 Aug 2015:
Around 800,000 refugees are expected to arrive in Germany this year, with the number of Syrians growing rapidly. Manfred Schmidt, Germany’s top migration official, discusses how the country is coping with the massive influx.

[...]

SPIEGEL ONLINE: There are currently around 250,000 asylum applications that have not yet been processed in Germany—and hundreds of thousands more will soon be added to the stack. How do you intend to process them all?

Schmidt: New decision-making centers will be created in several cities and thousands of new employees will be hired this year. And in 2016, we will hire up to 1,000 more. The effect has already become noticeable. By July, we had processed more applications than during all of 2014. We assume that we will be able to make up to 200,000 more decisions during the next six months.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How many refugees can Germany still take in?

Schmidt: When it comes to the absorption of people who are fleeing persecution and require protection, there can be no upper ceiling.

And:

Daily Mail, ‘Pope calls on every European parish to host one migrant family each’, 06 Sep 2015:
Pope Francis called on Sunday on every European parish and religious community to take in one migrant family each in a gesture of solidarity he said would start in the tiny Vatican state where he lives.

“I appeal to the parishes, the religious communities, the monasteries and sanctuaries of all Europe to ... take in one family of refugees,” he said after his customary Sunday address in the Vatican.

[...]

Counter-terrorism is a very tricky thing. It’s not really possible to always be able to find and break up terrorist cells just because you know that they are out there. Even being able to watch all of the signals all of the time, does not mean that the state can address all possible threats simultaneously. Being able to keep track of the relationships between people, and to decide who should be placed under total surveillance and when, is partly based on patterns, partly based on the experience of the case officers, partly based on luck, and the rest is fate. Think of this: To place someone under a wiretap requires a court order and that takes time to get. If you know who the attackers might be, you then have to prioritise who you’d want to place under 24/7 surveillance. Just to watch about five suspects, would require assigning several officers in several cars to that job. To make sure that everyone is properly alert and lively, a person might run these in four shifts over a 24 hour period. And then for all of those people, they would need support back in the operations centre to coordinate their actions, review intelligence and manage the wiretaps. And so you realise that you’ve actually got about a hundred people tasked to five suspects who you think might be planning an imminent attack.

Money is going out the door to finance that effort. And you’ve chosen to watch those particular people rather than dedicating those resources to any other cluster of people who might be the cell that you are looking for. Or perhaps even the cell you didn’t know you were looking for until something began to look suspicious. Other intelligence collection requests are being postponed or missed while that is occurring. Now imagine how much more difficult that becomes in a scenario with mass migration from a place where ISIL is operating. The threat would be extremely severe, more severe than it ever has been. Yet liberal politicians are making this scenario play out before everyone’s eyes.

Putting the Car into Gear

Europe is—whether it likes it or not—in the midst of military operations against an enemy that is determined to strike anywhere and at any time. Conduct of military operations must be guided by a set of established guidelines, referred to as doctrine. Often, doctrine is shaped significantly by factors other than the lessons learned during operations because the doctrine is also partly shaped by the political environment in which it manifested. Doctrine has increasingly been more a reflection of the influence of individuals with ideological biases and guilt complexes, budget constraints, and flagrant electioneering, rather than critical analysis, exercises, training, study or experience in the application of force.

I would say that at least four things need to be established and/or strengthened in order to begin addressing the problem:

• An independent operations centre for counter-terrorism police and immigration officials, which should conduct operations outside of the constraints of the political class. This would dampen the impact of any further liberal-minded populist meddling.


• Centralised control of the counter-terrorism police and immigration officials, along with the airforce and military ground forces. Immigration officials should be right inside the joint command structure. Not just in word, but in action.


• A commitment to review the demands that are placed on European militaries and intelligence services, and ensure that the funding meets their needs. Now is not the time to be cutting defence spending.


• ‘Letters of Marque’ need to be given to PMCs, so that they can legally leverage the power of the private sector toward fighting against Islamists directly. This time around, PMCs should also be patched right into the decision-making processes so that everyone is reading from the same script. This probably should be numbered among one of the lessons that was learned seven years ago in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Regarding the refugees that are fleeing from Iraq and Syria in the face of ISIL aggression, it is obvious that having the whole of Mesopotamia fleeing into Europe to get away from ISIL is simply an international absurdity. If ISIL were to be defeated in Iraq and Syria within a reasonable time frame, that would do a lot to stem the flow of migrants into Europe, because that would be effectively tackling it from the demand side. There would be less of a demand for entry into Europe, if stable governance were restored in Mesopotamia.

Strategic bombing against ISIL, while useful, does not actually restore stable governance and thus does not give people the confidence to remain in their homes and stop migrating out. Also, the compromise measure of embedding special forces into Iraq is not sufficient either, because you cannot just throw special forces into a country without any of the support and services that usually would accompany doing such a thing. And if someone is going to do that, then they might as well just resign themselves to the fact that they will end up with combat brigades in there eventually. So why not just plan for putting combat brigades back into Iraq from the start?

The purpose in such a case, should not be to try to ‘put Iraq back together again’ in the way that it was arranged before ISIL arose. Iraq will never be the same again, but re-establishing some new kind of borders would probably help to stabilise the situation. Continuing to support the existence of Iraqi Kurdistan would also be helpful. Also meriting attention would be people like the Assyrians who would like to have their own homeland be recognised in the Nineveh plains. There are also energy interests involved, as Exxon-Mobil has been in negotiations with individuals in the area. Furthermore, should these groups be given faithful support by NATO countries, they would be very grateful. Additionally, the governments of those hypothetically independent states or autonomous provinces might be able to act as satraps that are far more reliable and amenable to European interests than the consistently duplicitous satrap called Israel ever will be.

There are a lot of interests and angles of approach that can be summed together for a support of more North Atlantic involvement in ground combat against ISIL, and it would be nice if European people could impress upon the politicians that it is okay for them to show some political courage and support such measures. And that if they do not support such measures, they should be questioned as to why they refuse to support tough action against ISIL.

There has also been a dearth of enthusiasm for intervention among European ethno-nationalists, when in fact intervention is quite clearly something that European ethno-nationalists ought to be championing. It’s not enough to just be against mass migration, to be completely parsimonious and coherent, you have to support the measures necessary to disintegrate and destroy the problem at its source.

Motive Energy

All of what I’ve said above would be completely useless if a person doesn’t have the historical understanding and most importantly the motive energy to carry through the war to its objective. After all, it’s one thing to show a person their material interests, and to exhort them to support war, but it’s another thing entirely to have a person who has that will to fight and act on those interests. After all, a person could always say “I’ll accept a loss here and withdraw, it’s not worth it to me”.

Christians lack the motive energy for this war, and these examples are typical of that lack of motive energy:

Reuters, ‘Pope criticizes nations that close doors to migrants’, 17 Jun 2015:
Pope Francis on Wednesday called for respect for migrants and suggested that “people and institutions” who close doors to them should seek forgiveness from God.

The pope’s appeal, made at the end of his weekly general audience, came amid growing debate in Europe on how to deal with an immigrant crisis that has included clashes at the French-Italian borer between police and migrants.

“I invite you all to ask forgiveness for the persons and the institutions who close the door to these people who are seeking a family, who are seeking to be protected,” he said in unscripted remarks delivered in a somber voice.

France and Austria have stepped up border controls on migrants coming from Italy, turning back hundreds and leaving growing numbers camped out in train stations in Rome and Milan.

[...]

And:

Reuters, ‘Pope says weapons manufacturers can’t call themselves Christian’, 21 Jun 2015:
[...]

Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry at a rally of thousands of young people at the end of the first day of his trip to the Italian city of Turin.

“If you trust only men you have lost,” he told the young people in a long, rambling talk about war, trust and politics after putting aside his prepared address.

“It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn’t it?” he said to applause.

He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying “duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another.”

Francis also built on comments he has made in the past about events during the first and second world wars.

He spoke of the “tragedy of the Shoah,” using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.

[...]

That weak and pathetic behaviour from Christians should not be surprising. Christianity is less motivated to fight, because for them, the disagreement with Islam is not fundamental. They don’t fundamentally disagree with the premise of Islam because for them it merely is an argument about the specifics of the tyrannical Abrahamic god’s requirements. Christians are never going to have any lasting and enduring will to fight against Islam, because they are actually servants of the same god in the first place.

They complain of how ‘destructive’ the war is and how they ‘distrust’ people who sell weapons, but the whole world is constantly changing. Creation and destruction are both forms of change. Destruction is behind us and in front of us, so why shouldn’t we welcome death in the same way that we welcome life? The war against Islamism is not just killing without a goal, it is killing that has a goal of preserving those lives that we value.

The development of productive forces—which requires that energy supplies be maintained and goods to flow unimpeded by adversaries—leads to societies in which more people are able to ascend Maslow’s hierarchy. When people move up the hierarchy they have more time and inclination to examine the life that they are living critically, to plan for the future, and to engage in more in-depth personal development. We’re in a pivotal era in human history right now, where, since 2001, the forces of retrogression have found themselves locked in combat against the forces of progress, and it is a fight that will have lasting global implications for human evolution.

If some Arabs want to be regressive and stand in the way of human development, and if some Arabs want to act as a spearhead to break down ethnic genetic communities so that these blocks of political experience—political experience of the ages being one of the great intellectual treasures of nation-states—are eroded and destroyed, then it is absolutely right that people should kill any Arabs who behave in that way. Any group that feels that its destiny is to stand with ISIL, should be targeted, hunted down, and killed in the spacial battlefield. That would be progress.

Fundamentally, one of the most important things that people must be encouraged to do is reject the god of the monotheists. Its fraudulent claims that it ‘created everything’, must be rejected. The opinion that it is ‘a belief worthy of respect and toleration’ also must be rejected. Once you can make those in Europe who are trapped in delusion aware that the god of the monotheists is a liar and a fraud, and that nature is not something that could have been consciously made by anyone, then you will be laying the groundwork through which people can support war coherently.

Why is that so important? The reason is this: If people can be brought to understand the war in the realm of ideas, to understand that we are actually fighting against the power of the monotheistic god, to understand that this should be done deliberately and consciously, it has a real effect. It can cause transformations in people’s thinking that would lead to the complete inversion and thus destruction of Judeo-Christian society and morals, a destruction which needs to happen, along with the destruction of Islamic society and its prestige at the same time.

Those who were ‘losers’ in the past 2000 years will be ‘winners’ in the new and inverted world that is to come. Human beings will cast off the chains that are interwoven with dead flowers so that they can seek the true flower, because they’d be casting off the conditions and the ideas which had made the monotheistic lying possible in the first place, through participating in actions—as a society—that are understood to be antagonistic against the semitic god.

People should also be encouraged to show the viability and vitality of a new Europe, through their support for parallel civic organisations that strengthen national bonds of blood and proximity. These social organisations would be like a great constellation of stars shining like a thousand points of light over the continent, engaged in world service. By doing so, it would show that it is possible to run Europe without Christianity, without Islam, and without Judaism.

Through that kind of approach, we would be fighting the war domestically, fighting the war overseas, and also fighting the war in the world we cannot see. If we are successful at creating that environment—and we will be—I think there will be a definite chance for a new Europe to emerge.