Majorityrights Central > Category: Demographics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toward an Asian-Atlantic regional cooperation.

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

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

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

However, it will also involve some quid pro quo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the post of the Stark Interview -

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

Rep. Virgil Goode

Robert interviews Virgil Goode. Topics include:

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

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

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

Posted by Ann Corcoran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Ann Corcoran

She could not be “vetted.”

Where are you Virgil Goode?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Virgil Goode

See more to the story below..

...and…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing well by doing good?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues of Christianity aside..

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

Ann Corcoran

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

Who gave permission?

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

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

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

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

Church World Services (CWS)

Ethiopian Community Development Council

Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)

Hebrew Immigration Aid Society (HIAS)

International Rescue Committee (IRC)

US Committee for Refugees & Immigrants (USCRI)

Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services (LIRS)

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

World Relief Corporation (WR)

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said that they were obliged to do so.

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

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

Your tax dollars pay for it all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

More devastating than any terrorist attack could ever be.

Introduction

This article is just a very condensed version of some observations that have been burning on my mind this week and which came up over tea and biscuits during conversations with some of my work colleagues. It may be edifying for European nationalists and regionalists, so I’ve chosen to make a short article about the subjects covered. People should feel free to ask me any questions they like in the comments section, if anyone would like a more expansive explanation about the concepts I’m trying—humorously but with serious intent—to illuminate here.

The somewhat provocative phraseology I’m using here is quite deliberate and is used for a reason that will be explained later on in the article.

Twilight of the Westphalian Model

We are living a world that has progressed and changed significantly since the advent of industrial warfare. In the early 1900s, everything about warfare tended to be the resolution of international disputes through a state actor’s military personnel and machinery clashing in the spacial battlefield until someone was decisively defeated.

Now, this is no longer the case, after the late 1900s and early 2000s, war increasingly has become a matter of non-state actors waging war against other non-state actors, and in the case where states of a Westphalian inspiration came into contradiction with these non-state actors, the Westphalian states’ objective usually was to find a settlement of the conflict that would satisfy the commercial and geostrategic needs of those nations. The battle also takes place in ‘hearts and minds’, getting hearts and minds on one’s side has become not just an optional extra, but in many cases can be a crucial and decisive element of strategy.

The battle of ‘hearts and minds’ is happening in the case where you have to influence a ‘foreign’ population to co-operate with and support military operations that you are conducting inside their territory, or the case where you have to convince a ‘foreign’ population that your occupation of their territory is capable of providing safety and stability through effective counter-terrorism operations.

Increasingly, these same needs apply within the North Atlantic states as well, because we are actually now in a new generation of warfare. This is 5th generation warfare, not 4th generation warfare now. The events which took place in France on 13 November 2015 were a stark sign of that transition between generations having taken place.

ISIL’s attack on Paris was not just an attack against state infrastructure in an attempt to affect the French government’s policy preferences. It was not an attack that could be understood within the context of the Westphalian state model, or the world order that this model had given rise to. Instead, it was an attack against the Westphalian state model itself, and that is why the attackers chose the targets that they chose. They selected places that French people and the foreign residents of other culturally advanced populations would go to enjoy themselves. They chose to deliberately have amongst the assailants a mixture of people carrying Syrian passports alongside people who were second or third generation Muslim residents of European countries such as Belgium.

By selecting the targets in the way that they did, they were announcing that it was a fight of one population against another, one social group against another, in their view, and their intent was to make this fact clear to everyone. We on the other side should not shy away from acknowledging that this is really how it is. They believe that there is a ‘global Ummah’, a community of Muslims unconstrained by national borders, who are trying to uphold and enforce the rules of the Abrahamic monotheistic god over ‘the Kaffir’ who are pagans (this includes people who adhere closely to bonds of blood, which Islamic doctrine considers to be part of ‘Jahiliyyah’), polytheists, atheists, and apostates.

The rise of this kind of view, represents a rise of what is best described as ‘armed social movements’. Social movements have qualities that are distinct from that of traditional Westphalian state structures, even when they come to occupy the seats of power in a state. Armed social movements tend to have a cleanly defined ‘us vs. them’ world view, and the manifestation of state power which is filled by such movements, tends to be an outcome of battles fought in and against civil society, in the terrain of popular culture or through street battles or asymmetrical warfare. The manifestation of state power is not imposed from above, but rather, the manifestation of state power is a sign that the armed social movement has already triumphed among the population itself. The process is ‘bottom up’, rather than ‘top down’.

Armed social movements fight against each other in the terrain of civil society and through popular culture, to determine who will ultimately capture state power in the long term future.

We are an international ‘Satanic Alliance’?

In light of all of the above, the epithet which the jihadists have labelled us with, the epithet ‘Satanic Alliance’ comes into play and is a gateway to understanding the fundamental issue presently facing western civilisation, as well as a method for coming to terms with it.

On 01 November 2015, Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri published a sixteen minute video which spread across the Islamic world on social media and jihadist websites, calling for a unified Islamic front against the coalition of groups who are fighting against the imposition of Sharia law, which he described as forming a front against “the Satanic Alliance that attacks Islam”. In his video, he takes a tone toward ISIL which is one of coalition-building, as he is seeking to caution them on the dangers that come from infighting among the various jihadist groups. He doesn’t want ISIL, Jahbat Al-Nusra, and Ahrar Al-Sham to keep fighting against each other over their differences, rather he wants them to suspend their disagreements on who commands the jihadists (ie, Ayman Al-Zawahiri or Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi?) and how it should be expressed (ie, Islam faithful to the 8th century, or Islam adapted to the 21st century?) and to instead unite against “the Satanic Alliance”, and to “hone” their conduct so that they can convince the other Muslims that they “want to be ruled over by Sharia”.

Whenever I hear these things, I always smile a little, because by saying things like that, they are drawing the lines very cleanly and obviously.

However, within the west there is still a muddled feeling amongst the general population about this, which needs to be ironed out. We are and have been and hopefully will continue to be—objectively speaking—living in an increasingly ‘Satanic’ society, if you take the definition of what ‘Satanic’ means from the religious texts of the three Abrahamic religions.

Look at what those three religions stand for, and then look at what we stand for and what we would like to see manifest, and you discover immediately that—as I’ve said before—we are a threat to the Abrahamic religions, we are their adversary. What does ‘Satan’ mean? It literally means ‘the adversary’.

There are many important distinctions between the two sides, but the most important one in the context of the interests of the readers of Majorityrights is this one:

These two views are irreconcilably and diametrically opposed, and always will be.

Two camps: Make a decision, make a choice

Although some find it to be unsettling, the arrival of this amazing narrative brings clarity and doctrinal purity to a situation that previously seemed to lack it. Since 11 September 2001, the middle ground ought to have become entirely vulnerable to erosion. When the planes crashed into the World Trade Centre buildings in 2001, and when the bombs exploded on the trains in Madrid in 2003, and when the bombs exploded on the buses in London in 2005, and now in the wake of the migration crisis and the Paris attacks of 2015, all of these have painted and highlighted—in blood—the existence of two camps before humankind that everyone would have to choose between.

Sometimes, unexpected mouths utter statements that are true. George W. Bush actually stumbled partially onto the truth of the existence of this paradigm when he said, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. Osama bin Laden also once said, “The world today is divided into two camps.”

Both Bush and Bin Laden were essentially correct about that basic reality, although neither of them understood just how correct they were.

All the different operations by the two camps have since served to expose the people who claimed to be ‘in the middle ground’ as being actually through their actions on one side or on the other side, whether they are conscious of it or not.

The shrinking middle ground

Many people on the so-called centre-right, and many so-called radical traditionalists and court ‘historians’ and court ‘scholars’ were immediately exposed by the terrorist attacks and by the wars, and by the mass migration crisis.

All of those who rushed to make apologetics, excuses, and justifications for the Islamists prancing around in their midst, or else, made mealy-mouthed statements about how they ‘respected’ Islam or ‘shared traditional values with them’ and so ‘are internally conflicted on how to react’, or alternately, sought to allocate blame and condemnation onto the victims of Islamic terrorist attacks rather than onto the perpetrators, were all exposed. Some, such as the Jews and the Christians who are milling around among the ruling class in every western state, went so far as to actively campaign for more migrants when the mass migration and infiltration crisis began.

By these actions, they revealed themselves to everyone. Even the most naive observer of political affairs can now be convinced that there really are only two camps.

It is also worth mentioning that in fact, many conservatives of the traditionalist and civic nationalist sort, and almost all social democrats of every stripe, had always been in ‘the camp of Islam’ insofar as they refused to oppose mass migration from the Middle East and Africa, and they refused to criticise the fundamental basis of monotheism itself, restricting themselves only to criticising the methods of the so-called ‘radicals’. Those who walked in ignorance were simply unaware of this, because court ‘historians’ and court ‘scholars’ and the mainstream media had all portrayed them as being opposed, and as a result, their actual complicity with ‘the camp of Islam’ went unrecognised. As a result of this confusion, such persons and groups only appeared to be in the middle ground in the eyes of the ignorant and the uninformed. So it is only in the sense of the perception of the people, that the events since 11 September 2001 have ‘driven’ those people out of the middle ground. In reality they were never in it. It only appeared to be so. A prime example of this would be Angela Merkel and most of the Christian Democratic Union party in Germany. The CDU is firmly in ‘the camp of Islam’, and always has been, it was only in the eyes of the ignorant that it has appeared otherwise (eg, those who were fooled by the false dichotomy of ‘multiculturalism vs. integration’), until recently when it became openly apparent for all to see.

And so the middle ground, and even the perception of there being a middle ground, can now begin to wither. Rather than whining about methods, such as who kills who in what kind of brutal way, we should begin talking about the purpose behind the conflict and what its philosophical and spiritual basis is, and then offer a choice. In other words, we need to get down to the fundamentals.

Be confident

If we, the apparent ‘Satanic Alliance’ can stand together and remain completely and ruthlessly consistent in our narrative and defend the attractiveness and beauty of our Promethean goals, then we can gently—when and where we can—push the dialogue which encourages people to make the choice to join such an ‘alliance’.

In that sense, everything which has happened since 11 September 2001, should be seen not as a disorganised series of tragedies and inconveniences, but rather, as an opportunity, a springboard from which we as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists can jump forward and present—truthfully and with sincerity—the narratives and views of things like ‘the Satanic Alliance’ or ‘the DNA Nation’, ‘the dark side of the Enlightenment’, ‘post-modernity proper’, or ‘taking the kingdom of heaven by force’, or any other thought-form that is grounded in an absolute earthlyness of thought that we care to elucidate.

Events in France affect Germany.

There’s only so long that an idiot can keep-on-keeping-on, until all sections of the more rational elements of the establishment begin to question that idiot’s ability to remain politically viable.

We’ve all heard already about how the defence and security sector has found Germany to be a land of absurdity for quite a while now. But that alone is not enough to see someone removed from office. The preponderant political power in a liberal state is the haute-bourgoisie. Economic power precedes political power. This means that understanding the background financial and economic signals and the way that these signals interact with the overt political landscape, enables us to see an event developing from far off, and allows us to adjust our own tactics accordingly.

The Paris attacks have been a nightmare for Merkel because it has awakened criticism not only from German people in the street, but also among opportunistic members of her own party who are seeing now that she is at the weakest she ever has been, and that now is a chance for them to mount a political challenge. But the success of that challenge, when it comes, depends on the acquiescence or at least the sign of a resigned inevitability from financial players who are the stakeholders in the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of Germany.

The time when it would be politically expedient to remove Merkel, would be in December at the CDU conference, where someone would be able to demand that she should hand in her resignation, and twist her arm until she does. Who would be most likely to replace her in such a case? Most likely Wolfgang Schaeuble.

So our big question is: How likely is it that Angela Merkel will be forced to resign in December and be replaced by Wolfgang Schaeuble?

One way to find this out, would be to look at the macroeconomic stances of Merkel and Schaeuble, compare them, then watch and see how the ECB and the large players are behaving, to see if they are making any moves that would suggest that they don’t expect Merkel to still be there by the end of December.

It’s known that Schaeuble is more of a tight-fisted politician than Merkel when it comes to certain aspects of economic policy—Schaeuble hates expansionary policies much more than Merkel does. And for those of you who thought that it wasn’t possible to hate expansionary policies more than Merkel, I have to tell you, it’s possible, Schaeuble does precisely that. On that issue, he is pretty depressing.

Therefore, it stands to reason, that if you see Mario Draghi at the ECB suddenly deciding to rush through a lot of actions to carry out more expansionary economic policy (something which he certainly ought to do) within a time frame before the end of December, and that if you see big global economic stakeholders ‘forecasting’ interest rates that are even more subterranean than at present, along with ‘forecasting’ more quantitative easing, one of the factors motivating that choice could be that they are positioning themselves for a future in which Merkel is forced to resign. Why? Because it’s easier to carry out those actions before Schaeuble gets in. That way, when Schaeuble gets in, he would have to accept that it is already happening.

So, let’s see what people are saying as of this Friday evening:

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

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

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

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

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

Power Tool

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

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

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

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

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

QE Adjustment

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

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

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

Core Concern

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

[...]

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

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

[...]

Erik Nielsen, chief economist at UniCredit

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

[...]

Of course, the situation in Germany is not the only reason why the ECB would take the actions that it is going to take, it was likely something that was always going to happen. But the time frame within which it is occurring and the reaction of market participants to that risk event, seems to indicate that a lot of people are paying attention to this. Look at the 3 week and 1 month Euro-dollar volatility term structure, and you can see that they are reacting to European risks and not just to the upcoming 16 December Federal Reserve meeting in the USA: 

Also, given that there are numerous arguments for why Mario Draghi did not have to take the earlier-described actions in the short term (one of those being the oil prices argument), and given that he is determined to do it anyway, it would indicate that it is an attempt to get out in front of Schaeuble so as to pre-emptively make it more difficult for Schaeuble to get his way on monetary policy, and it would therefore mean that it is possible to be confident that Merkel is going to be gone by the end of December.

What does this mean for ethno-nationalists? Well, it means that it would probably be prudent to begin altering our rhetoric and policy suggestions with an eye toward a near-term future in which Merkel is not there. This will require some adjustments which would be best made sooner rather than later. We should be particularly vigilant against the idea that the removal of Merkel is a magical solution to all problems. Schaeuble’s disposition is one that presents a slightly altered set of problems to the European Union, and we would need to explore what those are ahead of time and be ready to criticise them when they come.

There needs to be an urgent study of all facets of Wolfgang Schaeuble’s politics. He might be chancellor of Germany very soon.

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

...some reflections on the events. It is salient that these killings were more personal and more directed at European peoples. That makes this, in an important sense, even worse, even more of an affront than 9-11. In 9-11, they went after symbols of Capitalism [World Trade Center] and the Military Industrial Complex [Pentagon] behind Liberal Democracy [Capitol building (i.e., tried to hit it, but failed, with the jet going down in Pennsylvania)]. Civilian casualties, though far more numerous, were incidental and not personally targeted.

In the case of the French attacks, however, not only did they choose to target the implicitly White culture of The Eagles of Death Metal fans [at Bataclan theatre], the implicitly White culture of football [Germany-France match], attended by the President of France, along with football’s not so implicit, but semi-explicit White culture [of football hooligans (as Jimmy Marr noted, hooligans tend to be nationalistic)]. They also went after the implicitly White cultural area of Paris in their targeting [the haute-bourgeoisie section (as noted by Kumiko)]. But not only did they contrast from 9-11 to narrow their target to these people demographically [implicitly White], in the case of the Bataclan theatre, they focused their attack still more, targeting them, [a death metal audience (or what they may as well have thought was one)] as personally as they could [holding them hostage] and shooting them [one by one].

Oh, hey, has anyone in Europe noticed that Sweden is not Vietnam?

I’m going to do something interesting which might be new to some readers, but which I think is a necessary part of cornering liberals so that they cannot continue to wear the masks of various other political groupings. I’m going to criticise the situation in Sweden, but I’m going to do it in a polemical form and it will be done from the left. It will be done so that people can see what that might look like.

Sometimes people talk about how a country is destroyed ‘in slow motion’, and you have to watch trends develop over a very long period of time in order to find out what the tricks of the reactionaries look like. Other times, you can find the template by just watching for a matter of a few weeks, as the pattern of behaviour exhibited by the reactionaries is just a sped-up version of the long-term template that they have been using all along.

As Sweden backslides into becoming one of the most reactionary and frankly dangerous European countries to live in, we can see a microcosm of how that disaster is fomented in a single snapshot of just the past eight weeks.

Here’s Step One:

Yahoo News, ‘EU needs more legal ways in for refugees: Swedish PM’, 07 Sep 2015:

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden will propose that the European Union set up more legal ways for refugees to arrive in the country, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said on Monday, announcing a push to make the Nordic country more welcoming for asylum seekers.

Lofven said the EU must introduce a permanent and obligatory redistribution mechanism for when disasters trigger drastically higher numbers of refugees seeking entry into the bloc, and that the EU should increase its number of quota refugees to about 100,000 from the 22,000 that the EU had earlier agreed.

Sweden has received more asylum seekers per capita than any other nation in Europe, giving weight to its voice over the crisis, which has intensified in recent days as thousands of migrants, many refugees from Syria, arrive mostly in Germany.

“Sweden, Germany and a few other countries have for a long time been alone, taken their responsibility. That’s not good enough,” Lofven told a news conference. “All countries in the EU must stand up for human values and do their duty.”

On Tuesday, Lofven will travel to Berlin to meet German chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss the European migration crisis. He will also meet the Austrian chancellor Werner Faymann.

[...]

The reactionary bourgeoisie calls for even more migrants to enter the country because of their desire to knock down organised labour by using a reserve army of labour. They are completely out of control because the broad mass of the population has failed to establish institutional structures that would keep them in check. The labour unions have been totally co-opted by liberal-capitalists and the union bosses are on their payroll and can no longer be trusted. Clearly, someone needs to establish new labour unions that are independent from the control of the Swedish political establishment.

The reactionary bourgeoisie are even now passing laws that ‘allow the migrants to integrate into the labour market’, by which they mean setting up a multi-tier labour arrangement. What does that mean? It means that the migrants and low-skilled Swedish workers alike all will find themselves thrown into a semi-feudalist mode of production despite living territorially inside of a so-called ‘advanced’ economy. It will be a subordinated mode which the reactionary bourgeoisie would maintain by implementing enforced stagnation.

If that is allowed to continue, automation and mechanisation of the economy would be stalled, and in fact would go backwards, because there would be no incentive to develop productive forces further. Automation and mechanisation is usually spurred by a shortage of cheap labour, not a glut of it.

Here’s Step Two:

Yahoo News, ‘Sweden to increase spending on helping immigrants by $214 million’, 10 Sep 2015:

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden will increase spending on better integrating immigrants into the labor market and increase compensation for municipalities where refugees settle, the government said on Thursday.

Next year, the added spending measures will total 1.8 billion Swedish crowns ($214 million).

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said the government would oblige all municipalities to accept refugees. The new spending includes a roughly 50 percent increase of the yearly compensation from the central government to 125,000 crowns per person up to the age of 65, it said in a statement.

Labor market measures include more money to validate foreign exams taken by immigrants and to the Swedish Public Employment Service for finding jobs quicker.

In its latest forecast, in July, the Swedish Migration Agency expected 74,000 asylum seekers this year, but an official told daily Dagens Nyheter on Thursday the figure would likely be revised upwards to above 80,000.

That money to ‘increase spending’ is not going to come from the pockets of the haute-bourgeoisie and their banking associates. Instead, it will come from the income taxes and regressive sales taxes that are imposed by the liberal-capitalist state against the broad mass of the people.

In other words, the taxes to pay for that ‘increase in spending’ will be collected from the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie. They will be asked to pay for their own enslavement, and pay for their own harassment by clerical-reactionaries in Muslim dress, and pay for their own impoverishment, and pay for the rising crime as Muslims rape their children. They’ll be told to accept this, because otherwise, someone might call them ‘racist’. And everyone knows how people are afraid of social ostracism like how cats are afraid of water. Probably.

Here’s Step Three, just twelve days later:

Yahoo News, ‘Sweden needs to borrow more, cut costs to meet refugee numbers: finance minister’, 22 Oct 2015:

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden will need to borrow more money and cut costs across the board to meet the expense of record numbers of asylum seekers arriving in the country, Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson said on Thursday.

“It is going to take longer for us to get back to balanced public finances,” Andersson told reporters. “It also going to mean that we are going to need to borrow money.”

Earlier in the day, the Migration Agency said it expected up to 190,000 asylum seekers to arrive in Sweden this year.

The Swedish haute-bourgeoisie would like to thank you for accepting 10,000 migrants. Oh, sorry, they mean 22,000. No wait, they meant 74,000. Or was that 80,000? No, they really meant 190,000. But it might be even more later.

The cuts enacted by the state onto itself will not be a cut in the amount of money being funnelled toward servicing debts and bailing out banks, but rather will be a cut to the quality of social services, hospitals, and schools for the broad mass of ethnic Swedish people.

The haute-bourgeoisie who run the Swedish government should no longer be permitted to call themselves ‘progressive’, nor should they be allowed to call themselves ‘leftists’.

For maximum irony and maximum punishment, the Swedish haute-bourgeoisie should instead be forced to experience an actual left-nationalist revolution right in their face which will utterly dispossess them of everything that they purport to own, so that they can see what actual leftism looks like.

And now before you readers start asking me if I’m trafficking in pure heroin in this post, just stay with me for a moment and actually engage in this thought experiment. It’s just a thought experiment, but I’m doing this so that you understand a particular point here.

Kumiko’s left-nationalist thought experiment for Sweden:

It is precisely at the very time when the haute-bourgeoisie are frenziedly accommodating terrorism and facilitating economic privations the likes of which have never before been seen in a European country, that Swedish progressives, socialists, and nationalists, formerly working separately, have united into a single party, the Socialist Workers Party of Sweden, to lead the revolutionary struggle of the entire people.

The Socialist Workers Party of Sweden is now founded. It is the party of the working class. By correctly formulating a mass line based on a mass perspective, it will help the proletariat lead the revolution waged for the sake of all oppressed and exploited people. From now on, you should join the party, and assist the vanguard in implementing the following goals:

1. To overthrow the Swedish liberal-capitalist government and to overthrow the ideological state apparatuses of the haute-bourgeoisie;

2. To abolish the Swedish monarchy;

3. To establish a Swedish worker-peasant-soldier government which caters to the needs of the broad mass of the people, facilitating the development of productive forces and the maintenance of an advanced and progressive culture;

4. To confiscate the assets of all banks and all other enterprises belonging to the reactionaries and put them under the actual control of the worker-peasant-soldier government;

5. To confiscate all the land in the northern zone of the country belonging to the reactionaries and re-distribute it back to the poor Sami peasants;

6. To implement a 6-hour working day and guaranteed annual income (GAI);

7. To abolish the forced buying of government bonds, abolish all taxes that are used for maintaining mass migration, and abolish all unjust taxes hitting the poor;

8. To deport all clerical-reactionaries from the country, and to shut down all ecclesiastical authorities, turning all Churches, Mosques, and Synagogues into secular community centres;

9. To dispense education to all the Swedish people, and maintain it at the highest quality, ensuring that it is laicist so that no religion may be taught;

10. To maintain equality between man and woman, with absolutely no exceptions;

11. To commit to the responsible maintenance of a market economy until its historical necessity is exhausted. The market economy would undergo an extended period of transition with several steps of development utilising mixed social and economic structures in which socialist factors are gradually strengthened and made dominant, so as to lay the groundwork for the transformation away from the market economy and into socialism.

Obviously, the following groups will not be able to accept even the thought of such a programme, as it effectively confiscates all of their property and outlaws them:

• Swedish reactionaries.
• Arab and African migrants.
• Jews.

That would be fortuitous, given that all three of those subversive miscreant groups could then be hunted down and arrested by the military or secret police, and then they could be sent to a detention facility and subsequently deported from the country.

Now, what is the point of this thought experiment? Well, I invite any of the Swedish readers of Majorityrights, to find some Swedish so-called ‘leftists’ in your neighbourhood. Propose my thought experiment programme goals to them with a straight face and with a seeming seriousness of intent, and then see how they react to it.

If the so-called ‘leftists’ react to the programme with horror and loathing because it harms the pro-immigration agenda, then you can say to them, “Oh, I see, you aren’t really leftists at all, you’re actually just a bunch of liberals who love getting cucked by black and Arab men”.

And you yourself will have also learned an interesting political lesson at the same time, from that whole experience.

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?

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?