Majorityrights Central > Category: Law & Order

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.

The Turkish airforce shot down a Russian Su-24M last week, and since that time, critical examination of Turkey has brought a number of issues that people had been warned about before to light in the media, which until now had been mostly ignored.

I had intended to write an article at Majorityrights about this, but then I realised that the Independent was actually saying everything that I was going to write, so in the interest of saving time, I will just quote them verbatim:

The Independent, ‘War with Isis: Obama demands Turkey closes stretch of border with Syria’, 01 Dec 2015 (emphasis added):

The US is demanding that Turkey close a 60-mile stretch of its border with Syria which is the sole remaining crossing point for Isis militants, including some of those involved in the massacre in Paris and other terrorist plots.

The complete closure of the 550-mile-long border would be a serious blow to Isis, which has brought tens of thousands of Islamist volunteers across the frontier over the past three years.

In the wake of the Isis attacks in Paris, Washington is making clear to Ankara that it will no longer accept Turkish claims that it is unable to cordon off the remaining short section of the border still used by Isis. “The game has changed. Enough is enough. The border needs to be sealed,” a senior official in President Barack Obama’s administration told The Wall Street Journal, describing the tough message that Washington has sent to the Turkish government. “This is an international threat, and it’s coming out of Syria and it’s coming through Turkish territory.”

The US estimates some 30,000 Turkish troops would be needed to close the border between Jarabulus on the Euphrates and the town of Kilis, further west in Turkey, according to the paper. US intelligence agencies say that the stretch of frontier most commonly used by Isis is between Jarabulus, where the official border crossing has been closed, and the town of Cobanbey.

It has become of crucial importance ever since the Syrian Kurdish forces known as the People’s Protection Units (YPG) captured the border crossing at Tal Abyad, 60 miles north of Isis’s capital of Raqqa in June. Turkey had kept that border crossing open while Isis was in control on the southern side, but immediately closed it when the YPG seized the crossing point. The Turkish authorities are refusing to allow even the bodies of YPG fighters, who are Turkish citizens and were killed fighting Isis, to be taken back across the border into Turkey.

The US move follows increasing international criticism of Turkey for what is seen as its long-term tolerance of, and possible complicity with, Isis and other extreme jihadi groups such as al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra Front, and Ahrar al-Sham. Not only have thousands of foreign fighters passed through Turkey on their way to join Isis, but crude oil from oilfields seized by Isis in north-east Syria has been transported to Turkey for sale, providing much of revenue of the self-declared Islamic State.

Last week a Turkish court jailed two prominent journalists for publishing pictures of a Turkish truck delivering ammunition to opposition fighters in Syria. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed that the weapons were destined for Turkmen paramilitaries allied to Turkey fighting in Syria, but this was denied by Turkish political leaders close to the Turkmen.

Turkey is now under heavy pressure from the US and Russia, with President Vladimir Putin directly accusing Ankara of aiding Isis and al-Qaeda. In the wake of the shooting down of a Russian aircraft by a Turkish jet, Russia is launching heavy air strikes in support of the Syrian army’s advance to control the western end of the Syrian Turkish border. The pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said a Russian air strike on the town of Ariha yesterday killed 18 people and wounded dozens more. Meanwhile Turkey said it had now received the body of the pilot killed when the plane was shot down and would repatriate it to Moscow.

The US demand that Turkey finally close the border west of Jarabulus could, if Turkey complies, prove more damaging to Isis than increased air strikes by the US, France and, possibly Britain. The YPG has closed half the Syrian frontier over the last year and defeated an Isis assault aimed at taking another border crossing at Kobani. Syrian Kurdish leaders say they want to advance further west from their front line on the Euphrates and link up with a Kurdish enclave at Afrin. But Turkey insists that it will resist a further YPG advance with military force. Instead, it had proposed a protected zone on the southern side of the border from which Isis would be driven by moderate Syrian opposition fighters.

The US has opposed this proposal, suspecting that the Turkish definition of moderates includes those the US is targeting as terrorists. It also appears to be a ploy to stop the YPG, heavily supported by US air power, expanding its de facto state along Turkey’s southern flank. US officials are quoted as saying that there could be “significant blowback” against Turkey by European states if it allows Isis militants to cross from Syria into Turkey and then carry out terrorist outrages in Europe.

Meanwhile in Iraq, officials said three more mass graves had been found in the northern town of Sinjar, which Kurdish forces backed by US-led air strikes recaptured from Isis earlier this month.

This is relevant to two flashbacks from last year, to stories that were made available in Al-Monitor via Taraf:

Al-Monitor / Taraf, ‘Opposition MP says ISIS is selling oil in Turkey’, 13 Jun 2014:

A man works at a makeshift oil refinery site in Raqqa’s countryside, May 5, 2013.  (photo by REUTERS/Hamid Khatib)

The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has been selling smuggled Syrian oil in Turkey worth $800 million, according to Ali Ediboglu, a lawmaker for the border province of Hatay from the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP).

Speaking to Taraf, Ediboglu recounted the findings of his research on ISIS activities.

“ISIS is a terrorist organization that poses a global threat, a group that kills recklessly and believes that killing people is a ticket to heaven,” Ediboglu said. “One would expect such a group to engage in certain attacks in Turkey any time. Turkey’s cooperation with thousands of men of such a mentality is extremely dangerous. You can never know what demands they could make to Turkey, a country whose regime they consider to be un-Islamic. No one can guarantee they will not repeat the massacres they commit in Iraq today or carry out similar attacks in Turkey tomorrow.”

Oil revenues

Ediboglu said: “$800 million worth of oil that ISIS obtained from regions it occupied this year [the Rumeilan oil fields in northern Syria — and most recently Mosul] is being sold in Turkey. They have laid pipes from villages near the Turkish border at Hatay. Similar pipes exist also at [the Turkish border regions of] Kilis, Urfa and Gaziantep. They transfer the oil to Turkey and parlay it into cash. They take the oil from the refineries at zero cost. Using primitive means, they refine the oil in areas close to the Turkish border and then sell it via Turkey. This is worth $800 million.”

Is Turkish intelligence helping fighters?

Ediboglu further stated: “Fighters from Europe, Russia, Asian countries and Chechnya are going in large numbers both to Syria and Iraq, crossing from Turkish territory. There is information that at least 1,000 Turkish nationals are helping those foreign fighters sneak into Syria and Iraq to join ISIS. The National Intelligence Organization (MIT) is allegedly involved. None of this can be happening without MIT’s knowledge.”

Taraf’s earlier report on diesel smuggling

Last Aug. 20, Taraf carried a report headlined “Smugglers riding on a billion dollars.” It reported that Turkish soldiers clashed with and repelled hundreds of horse riders and thousands of foot smugglers at the Syrian border on a daily basis. It pointed out that the biggest fight between the [Syrian Kurdish] People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra in Rojava [northern Syria] was over the revenues from the sale of the region’s petroleum products to Turkey.

The report noted that some 2,000 oil wells exist in the Rumeilan region, which lies on the other side of the border stretching between [Turkey’s] districts of Cizre in Sirnak province and Nusaybin in Mardin province. “The region’s oil is being smuggled to Turkey. The daily amount of smuggled diesel fuel has reached 1,500 tons, which corresponds to 3.5% of Turkey’s consumption,” it added.

And:

Al-Monitor / Taraf, ‘Al-Qaeda Militants Travel To Syria Via Turkey’, 28 Jul 2014:

A vehicle carrying supplies stands at a checkpoint of the Islamist rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria’s Deir al-Zour countryside, July 27, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Karam Jamal)

During the 2½ years of clashes in Syria, there has been constant debate about how Turkey’s borders were crossed. There were reports that Islamic groups going to fight regime of President Bashar al-Assad — first and foremost al-Qaeda, which has supporters in Turkey — were crossing over the Turkish border.

Interesting claims

To find out more, we met with people close to al-Qaeda in Istanbul. These people are shopkeepers who live in the Fatih district of Istanbul, but who won’t give their names. They have interesting things to say about the Syrian war. These sources told us that following the eruption of war in Syria, al-Qaeda elements from Europe, the Caucasus, Afghanistan and North Africa began crossing into Syria via Turkey. These sources also had interesting things to say about the clashes with the Kurdish PYD and how the border is crossed.

Met by intelligence officials

O.E., one of our sources, said he crossed the border and went to Syria before the Jabhat al-Nusra-PYD clashes. He crossed from an unsupervised area on the Turkish side to the Syrian side controlled by the PYD. O.E. said, “We told the PYD we were there for Jabhat al-Nusra and they let us pass.” O.E. said many people cross the same way: “Fighters coming via Chechnya and Afghanistan are met at the Syrian border. There are intelligence officials there. Those crossing the border inform the intelligence people of their affiliation and under whose command they will be. Then, they cross the border and report to their units.”

Treated in Turkey

O.E. said those heavily wounded in clashes are brought to Turkish hospitals. He added, “Some return to their countries by the same route. There are al-Qaeda mujahedeen from Afghanistan and the Caucasus fronts who come with their families. Most of them settle in Syria. There are hundreds of militants who come the same way from Northern Africa, the Caucasus, Europe and Afghanistan. They simply cross the Turkish border and join the fight.”

1,000 Chechens to Syria

O.E. said Chechens are now one of the strongest groups in Syria. “Under their commander Abu Omar, about 1,000 Chechens came to Syria. First they were with Jabhat al-Nusra, but now they have moved over to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS),” he said.

There are also Turks

O.E. said many Turks had gone to Syria to fight. “Some were martyred. Some stayed for a while and returned. Some couldn’t resist going back to Syria. A retired policeman who is a friend of mine went to Syria to fight. He trained fighters in weapons. Several of us went to Syria before the fighting between the PYD and Jabhat al-Nusra broke out. Without being asked anything on the Turkish side, we just crossed to an area of Syria controlled by the PYD. We told them we came to [fight with] Jabhat al-Nusra and they let us enter,” O.E. said.

The ISIS fans the clashes

O.E. claimed that it was the ISIS that was flaming the clashes with the PYD. “The ISIS declared that Jabhat al-Nusra was its subordinate organization. Jabhat al-Nusra commanders refused this claim and said they were under al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri. These claims caused disputes within the organization. Chechen groups under Abu Omar in Syria split from Jabhat al-Nusra and joined the ranks of the ISIS. It was the ISIS fighters who provoked the recent clashes with the PYD. Reports said the ISIS entered and opened fire in PYD-controlled villages to disrupt the non-hostility agreement between the PYD and Jabhat al-Nusra,” he concluded.

And more recently:

Todays Zaman, ‘Erdogan tacitly acknowledges claim MIT transported arms to Syria’, 25 Nov 2015:

Syria-bound trucks operated by MIT were searched in January 2014 after prosecutors received tip-offs that they were illegally carrying arms to Syria. (Photo: DHA)

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday seemingly validated claims previously made by critics who alleged that the Turkish government was sending weapon-filled trucks to radical groups in Syria by sarcastically asking, “So what if the MIT [National Intelligence Organization] trucks were filled with weapons?”

Pro-government figures had previously claimed that trucks belonging to MIT that were intercepted en-route to Syria contained “humanitarian aid” for the Bayir-Bucak Turkmens who live just over the border from Turkey’s southern Hatay province. Many claims were made by the opposition and Turkish media that the trucks were, in fact, transporting weapons to radical factions in Syria.

Early in 2014, an anonymous tip led to the interception of a number of trucks on the suspicion of weapons smuggling. The first operation took place in Hatay on Jan. 1, 2014. Another anonymous tip led to three more trucks being stopped and searched in Turkey’s southern Adana province on Jan. 19, 2014.

Speaking to a room full of teachers on Tuesday gathered for Teachers’ Day, Erdogan said, “You know of the treason regarding the MIT trucks, don’t you? So what if there were weapons in them? I believe that our people will not forgive those who sabotaged this support.”

Erdogan was speaking just hours after Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 aircraft near the Syrian border on Tuesday morning after, Ankara has said, it violated Turkish airspace despite repeated warnings.

Erdogan accused the prosecutors investigating the MIT trucks of denying Turkmens the power to defend themselves. “Those [MIT] trucks were taking aid to the Bayir-Bucak Turkmens. Some were saying, ‘Prime Minister Erdogan said, there were no weapons inside those trucks;’ So what if there were?”

Justice and Development Party (AK Party) officials called the 2014 investigation of the MIT trucks “treason and espionage” on the part of the prosecutors because the trucks were claimed to be transporting humanitarian aid to the Bayir-Bucak Turkmens.

Erdogan, who was prime minister at the time, said during a television program immediately after the interception of the trucks became public knowledge that the trucks were carrying aid supplies to Turkmens in Syria.

Many high-level Turkish officials, including then-President Abdullah Gül, said the trucks’ cargo was a “state secret,” which led some to speculate that the trucks were carrying arms.

However, Syrian-Turkmen Assembly Vice Chairman Hussein al-Abdullah said in January 2014 that no trucks carrying aid had arrived from Turkey.

The recent military operation of the Syrian government, backed by Russian air strikes, in the rural area of Latakia, inhabited by Bayir-Bucak Turkmens has caused thousands of Turkmens to flee to the Turkish border. A Turkmen brigade commander called for Turkey’s assistance and expressed his frustration that Turkey’s helping hand had not been extended far enough.

Turkmen Commander Ömer Abdullah of the Sultan Abdülhamit Brigade, who is fighting against the forces of Syrian President Bashar al- Assad, recently called on Turkey to help the Turkmens being pounded with cluster bombs by the Syrian regime and Russian forces.

“We are trying to survive under unbearable brutality and we need Turkey’s help,” said Abdullah. Expressing criticism of the AK Party, Abdullah said: “Every day our Turkmen brothers are dying. We expect the government to support us. Why have they abandoned us? Our martyrs fall every day. Why are we being left alone? I don’t understand.”

Abdullah’s claim pokes an important hole in the AK Party’s claims, while also posing the question of to whom the MIT trucks, now widely accepted as transporting weapons, were sent.

CHP leader says they told AK Party not to send weapons to Syria

Main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kiliçdaroglu said on Wednesday that Turkey had become a country importing terrorism from Syria.

“We told them [the AK Party] not to. They said they were sending humanitarian aid. Later the documents were revealed [refuting these claims].”

Kiliçdaroglu was referring to the Cumhuriyet daily’s headline story in May which discredited AK Party and Erdogan’s earlier claims that the trucks were carrying humanitarian aid to Turkmens. The article showed photos from the search of the MIT trucks which were revealed to be carrying heavy munitions. Kiliçdaroglu consequently asked to whom the trucks were going, if not to Turkmens.

After the publication of the stills as well as video, Erdogan lashed out at Cumhuriyet and its editor-in-chief, Can Dündar, for publishing the evidence, publicly vowing that Dündar would “pay a heavy price” for his report.

According to the report, there were six steel containers in the trucks which contained a total of 1,000 artillery shells, 50,000 machine gun rounds, 30,000 heavy machine gun rounds and 1,000 mortar shells. All of this is registered in the prosecutor’s file on the MIT truck case, the report said.

Erdogan personally sued Dündar and is requesting that he be given a life sentence, an aggravated life sentence and an additional 42-year term of imprisonment on charges related to a variety of crimes, ranging from espionage to attempting to topple the government and exposing secret information.

Following the Cumhuriyet report, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that it is “none of anybody’s business” what the trucks contained. Speaking in a live broadcast on the Habertürk news station, in May, Davutoglu said, “This is a blatant act of espionage.”

Tugrul Türkes, who made it into the AK Party cabinet on Tuesday after switching from the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) in September, said in June that the trucks were not destined for Syrian Turkmens. Speaking on CNN Türk in June, Türkes said: “I swear that those weapons were not sent to Turkmens as they [Erdogan and other government officials] claim. We [the MHP] have connections with Turkmens [in Syria].”

Prosecutor admits 2,000 truckloads sent to Syria

A pro-government prosecutor who was appointed to the MIT trucks case inadvertently admitted in May that weapon-laden trucks made 2,000 trips to Syria, according to the lawyer of one of the defendants in the case.

Hasan Tok, the lawyer for former Adana Provincial Gendarmerie Regiment Commander Col. Özkan Çokay, who was involved in the search of MIT trucks in January 2014, said that he learned that there had been at least 2,000 trips made by MIT trucks to Syria from the prosecutor, Ali Dogan.

Dogan, known as a government loyalist, filed for a verdict of non-prosecution regarding the investigation after he was appointed to the position of Adana chief public prosecutor. According to Tok, Dogan had asked the defendants in a previous hearing, “2,000 trucks have passed [into Syria], why was this one specially chosen?”

“We didn’t know 2,000 trucks had passed into Syria; may god bless Ali Dogan,” said Tok.

Of course, the weapons did not go to the Turkmens. The weapons on those trucks actually went to groups like the FSA 10th Coastal Brigade which has conducted operations in line with Jahbat Al-Nusra and Ahrar Al-Sham. It’s also reasonable to speculate that significant amounts of those supplies also found their way into the hands of ISIL.

Turkey’s intense protectiveness about Russian interactions with their border, may have been due to the fact that they didn’t want the Russians to be able to do air interdiction against what was an ongoing logistics operation taking place across that border.

It’s a depressingly ridiculous sequence of events which gives Russia the ability to create a media narrative about how ‘only Russia’ is ‘fighting the terrorists’ with real determination, because Turkey is a part of NATO and is basically embarrassing NATO with its duplicitous behaviour.

There is a silver lining to these dark clouds, though. Up until just recently, Russia had been seeking to work with Turkey on the provision of oil and gas pipeline projects into Europe, which would have increased European dependence on Russian energy companies. Thanks to this sequence of events, Russia and Turkey are now at odds with each other, and Russia is seeking to suspend those projects and to place sanctions on Turkey.

All of this has not worked out too badly. Not only has Turkey’s duplicity finally come to light in a way that makes it impossible for anyone in western governments to avoid dealing with it, but additionally the Russian government is now politically incapable of partnering with Turkey against the European Union’s geostrategic interests with regards to energy concerns, at least in the near term, as negotiations on the Turkish Stream pipeline project are suspended.

This gives more time for the effects of the Iran deal to come into play, since Iran was able to enlist Russian assistance in the P5 negotiations to make the case for sanctions being removed, while at the same time positioning itself against Russia as an alternative energy supplier for Europe, which would be able to substitute its natural gas in place of Russia’s and increase the diversification of supply. This would in turn lessen Russia’s political influence in Europe.

Iran’s infrastructure would not be ready to supply Europe in the near term, and so the near term quarrel between Russia and Turkey, gives the European Union more time to coordinate that infrastructure development with Iran, and potentially tilts the tables by making Russia appear less reliable as a supplier.

From that perspective, all of this is a win for the North Atlantic.

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.

Ahmed Mohamed: Clock Boy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

                 
An ancient instinct that is vital: “Wait, who are you? “

What is it really, that is called “xenophobia”?: Article translated and republished from “Nya Dagbladet Analys”

What really is referred to by the word “xenophobia”?

Xenophobia is no human idea, it is not a political ideology. The inherent notion that individuals from other ethnic groups are different is as old as humanity itself.

That political leaders throughout human history have tried to either foment or stifle this innate team spirit does not change its origin or function. Ultimately, while it has often come to be called xenophobia, it is a kind of defense mechanism of an ethnic group. It has a cohesive function but is also vital to the group’s survival.

It is easy to think today that racism is obsolete in modern societies, and political ideas that multicultural and multi-ethnic societies are something we can decide to create, and then use various integration programs as a tool to make this work artificially.

It is important to remember that “xenophobia” has always been the human diversity condition. Without this desire or sense of distinction and boundaries no ethnic group could have existed for very long before it would be adulterated and perish again.

The world’s major ethnic groups; blacks, whites and Asians, and all its subsets of peoples did not come into existence overnight. It has taken nature tens of thousands, if not millions of years to enrich the earth with the human diversity which we have today. The birth of a new ethnic group has always been dependent on a distinct geographic location. For the purpose of various ethnic groups’ birth and continued maintenance, they have always required “xenophobia”, more properly termed “alien skepticism” or “stranger caution” as a prerequisite.

The principle or the basic human function is exactly the same as in individuals. An individual who is not skeptical or cautious when confronted with a stranger will not survive in the long run. This instinct is basically in all living creatures on earth and is deeply rooted.

The function and conclusion of prejudices

“Alien skepticism” or “fear” of the unknown is a kind of first line of defense. Here comes the concept of prejudice. An individual always makes a first assessment of the foreigner—a judgment before it knows any details for sure. We must also understand that individual assessment, when the unknown has become known, can shift from prejudice to “judgment”, a conclusion based on knowledge.

However, today we are told by the modern political system that prejudice is just ignorance and as soon as this ignorance is gone, the foreigner should be welcomed. In fact, the individual’s or group’s conclusion could be that the foreigner cannot necessarily be given a pass, and may intend to cause us harm.

Racists in every expression of the negative sense, of course, are also those who want to cause an ethnic group’s unity and uniqueness to perish through mixing and division. Many nations and entire civilizations during the history of humanity have vanished for this reason.  Either by displacement and extinction or by blending them away out of all recognition.

A true defender of the world’s human diversity turns naturally against both extremes of racism and genocide.  Moreover, the criminalization of these two extremes is stated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, saying that not only is performance of these acts criminal but it is also criminal to instigate them. Thus, the express intent or encouragement to try to create a multi-ethnic society, which inherently violates the right to the preservation of the ethnic and cultural characteristics of the group, or displacement or eradication of a people, could fall within the scope of this crime. In the UN declaration it says, among other things, that the following shall be considered as genocide:

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life intended to lead to its complete or partial physical destruction; (d) to take measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. “

In the ongoing development of today’s Sweden where a large number of non-European immigrants are coming to the country, a natural segregation process is marked by Swedes who move away from immigrant areas while various immigrant groups cluster together, and those immigrant groups quickly receive a residence permit and can select where in the country they want to stay. In this way the crime referred-to in the last paragraph concerning genocide may be relevant, eg. in cases where parents are not allowed to put their children into any school but are forced to send them to the local multi-ethnic schools where Swedish children in many Swedish schools already are a minority in their own country.

In the next step they might endeavor to create a multi-ethnic society through the use of integration programs, and this could fall within the scope of “hate crimes” because there would be a restriction of the indigenous group’s autonomy.

The general conclusion regarding the question of earth’s ethnic diversity is that the property known as “xenophobia” is a necessary evil. The key instead now is to thwart its extremes. The leading political establishment in general seems to dumb-down and exaggerate the image of our instinct for caution, instincts like defense and self-preservation. This they do, among other things, by trying to characterize as a disease, what is actually an instinct and a function that acts as a guarantor for the conservation of all communities, by using a negative-sounding designation such as “xenophobia”. If there is an “undue fear” of the unknown, its assessment must of course be something that is considered “reasonable” and make sense, and it needs to exist and be expressed.

There has also been a confusion between the fact that ethnic groups are different and should be valued as such, with the idea that ethnic groups are ranked differently, the two are very different things. The most extreme manifestations of the debate would not even concern themselves with the thought that there are different kinds of people on earth.

This is often presented as options of black and white, where either you accept today’s multicultural and ethnic change in Sweden beyond recognition, or you accept hatred and abuse against all immigrants who are in Sweden and the need to advocate a hundred percent purity. Swedes are a generally balanced people and have an absolutely predominant wish for neither of these extremes. Discernment is often the first casualty when debate deteriorates.

Reliance on these extremes and extremists, mainly in politics, business and the media is driving the currently extreme situation. However, what remains and ensures that we can get a more balanced society and social climate in the future, is that our age-old instinct for self-preservation can take on a balanced and natural expression.

Swedes may be very open-minded, but they also have a right to their own preservation.

NYD Analysis

 

Don’t worry, I’m the kind of foreigner that you’ll like. Hopefully.

Majorityrights began with and has long been committed to freedom of speech, no matter how controversial the opinion, as I can clearly see from the archives. It has been published as an internet magazine with considerable bravery given the political environment and the risks that come from being misunderstood, and has had a pretty diverse set of contributors and viewers. On 14 October 2014, it marked its tenth year in operation, and I hope that its eleventh year coming in just a few months will be as illuminating as ever. As a newcomer, and as an East Asian woman, I feel privileged to be invited to submit articles from my perspective and experience.

Here, on what could be described as freedom of speech’s front porch in its tenth year, we have a good place to talk frankly and honestly as neighbours and allies with common interests. What I’m about to provide is what I see as a necessary polemic against some positions that exist in Majorityrights’ archives and an invitation to conversation as such.

It is said in warfare about the ‘turning manoeuvre’, that when you move into an opponent’s rear in order to cut them off from their support base, you are taking the risk of getting yourself cut off from your own.

A similar manoeuvre has been attempted by many ethno-nationalists in Europe since 2001 on a political level with regards to the War on Terror, through their decision to advance negative attitudes toward it and their decision to develop talking points that reinforce those attitudes. They are refusing to endorse the War on Terror under the belief that this non-endorsement is somehow a ‘good’ angle to protest the political establishment from. It is not good. Those ethno-nationalists are getting themselves cut off because what they are doing actually undermines their own ability to address a severe demographic threat and also undermines their ability to address a persistent international security threat. It’s an unfortunate situation, because it is crucial for people to be able to square the thoughts that are going on their heads with the reality on the ground: The reality of the necessity of overseas contingency operations.

To understand how things reached the stage that they have reached, first a person has to remember how things started out. The world was stunned to see the events that were taking place on television on 11 September 2001. Nineteen Arab men had hijacked airliners, and rather than putting the planes down at an airport and demanding a ransom, they chose to put the planes down by sending them into buildings in New York City.

People seem to have struggled to understand how this could happen.

Over time, a self-hating narrative built up in which the citizens of the North Atlantic were largely blaming their own governments for having allegedly ‘fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘supporting radical Islamists’, while simultaneously also allegedly ‘fanning the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘opposing Islamists and offending Muslims’. Both of these narratives cannot make sense at the same time, and I would argue that neither of those narratives are true. Furthermore, the apparent implication in both of those narratives is that the North Atlantic should refrain from pursuing its interests in the zone to the south.

That is an idea that should be rejected on the basis that it leads only to paralysis in the political sphere, and a loss of initiative in the military sphere. Groups which argue that the North Atlantic should adopt a passive stance and not assert its interests, and those who place blame onto the wrong people, may mean well, but they do not realise that the narratives they are creating can lead to serious crises which may not have actually been intended by those dissenting groups.

READ MORE...

                           
“As a White person, I feel that the White race is threatened today! Are Estonians also so brain-washed now that they start talking some kind of politically correct bullshit?”       
                                    -  Ojuland said.

READ MORE...

The other day I received an email from a reader who expressed the same vexing disbelief felt by all of us, I would say, about the role of “the Establishment” in this vast and viscerally offensive phenomenon that has become known euphemistically as Moslem Grooming.

Steve S, I shall call him, asked how, “given the length of time, the quantity of the victims, and narrow demographics of the perpetrators and the horrific nature of the crime” there could have been literally no Establishment response, beyond an implacable will to look away.

Well, Steve, the time period over which the crime has been around is well over 25 years.  Back in 1988 there had been an uproar among Sikhs in Birmingham when girls from their community were targeted by Moslem men.  Then, when news of the first Rochdale trial finally broke into the press (that is, when the press was forced to report it), a retired police officer came forward to report that as long ago as the early 90s he personally was ordered not to investigate victims’ complaints.  Because of the “grooming” nature of the offence, involving supposed boyfriends, drugs, alcohol, and other forms of bribing the girls, it is likely to have been initiated by Mirpuris of the second or later generations. It could have been going on thirty or even forty years ago.  However, it is not limited to Mirpuri or even Pakistani Moslems today.  The BNP has reported that in Wrexham, for example, the offenders are Iraqi.

Given the uncertainty of the time-scale, the quantity of victims is, of course, impossible to assess with any degree of certainty.  The latest assessment for Rotherham is that there have been around 2,000 victims there alone.  But Rotherham, it has been said, is dwarfed by events in Manchester and Sheffield.  There has been talk of “the tip of the iceberg”.  There have been over fifty cases brought to court so far – few of them reported nationally.  The other day I saw someone use an estimate of 130,000 victims from day one – whenever that might have been - and that could be the right sort of scale.  We just don’t know.

READ MORE...