Majorityrights Central > Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

Dangerous clowns inside the alt-right big tent

Are they ok with Jews, are they not ok with Jews? the alternative right reveals through glaring contradictions - saliently now between Colin Liddell and Greg Johnson - that their big tent cannot be entrusted as the platform to uphold the interests of European peoples.

Its big tent includes people who are enemies of each other already and people who are, and will remain, our enemies ultimately.

The inadequacy of the alternative right big tent came into high relief in arguments on recent threads at the site directly named Alternative Right, specifically under articles by Colin Liddell in which he not only argues against The Daily Stormer platform and approach (well and good to argue against that), but also in favor of including Jews in White advocacy.

That is nothing new generally speaking, coming from “Alternative Right”, and that is why they are placed in MR’s controlled opposition section. What is different is the explicitness and vehemence with which Liddell has argued for the inclusion of Jews. But still more revealing of the folly of trying to play along and keep the alternative right’s big tent together, was Greg Johnson coming across to lend support to Colin Liddell, whose argument to include Jews was virtually synonymous with the commentator Uh, who was banned from commenting at Counter-Currents by Greg Johnson for that reason.

That is, Johnson takes a categorical position that Jews and those who would argue for their inclusion in our nations and in entrusted positions with our advocacy are not to be accepted (Majorityrights agrees with that completely). However, in an apparent move to maintain participation with the alternative right big tent, Johnson has turned around to support Liddell despite Liddell’s argument to include Jews in our advocacy.

From TradYouth to Daily Stormer (anti-Jewish Christian sites who are tight with one another) to TradYouth who work with Alt Right (while Alt Right hates Daily Stormer), connecting with Alt Right’s Christian element in Andy Nowicki, who, along with Colin Liddell, is inclusive of Jews and relatively ok with “manosphere” types such as Forney and the White people be damned, lets mix and rape them away Muslim Roosh, who are welcome in the Regnery-Gottfried Circus with Radix-NPI (which Alt Right supports as upstanding) - which banned TradYouth from its recent conference for the sake of good appearances - though both TradYouth and Richard Spencer traffic in ‘radical traditionalism’; they had been standing with Greg Johnson until he defected upon the failed conference with anti-racist, “Eurasianist”, Dugin. While again, Johnson has done an about face on his categorical position against Uh (though the occasion of Uh’s being banned provided very eloquent commentary and conclusive arguments for his exclusion), and against others who would argue for the inclusion of Jews in White advocacy - all waffled, apparently to maintain the big tent of the right, despite its inherent instability. If you think that is confusing, the list of the alternative right’s contradictions to coherent White interests can go on…

Despite its many glaring contradictions to the interests of European peoples, they try to maintain their right wing big tent and they try to bury and make redundant our White Left Nationalism.

The reason for that attempted obfuscation by the alternative right big tent is likely to be that most of its members feel (with good reason) that their positions cannot survive without the camouflage and facile coalitions of their big, incoherent tent.

By contrast to the alternative right’s overly inclusive big tent, Majorityrights shows itself and will continue to show itself the solid platform for the advocacy of European peoples, our ethno-national discretion and regional cooperation.

1. It does not include Jews - on the contrary, it recognizes their pattern and their seven niche control points as arrayed against European interests in particular and ethnonationalism generally.

2. It neither views Hitler as perfect nor a figure to be redeemed and upheld for WN.

3.  It is not a Christian site; it is working within and developing a better moral order.

4. It has post modern bearings, which allow for the management of social groups both through necessarily reconstructing forms/traditions and necessary modernizations; it is not scientistic or right-wing - with all the attendant instability that you are witnessing in the alternative right. Rather it can and does take the social group, its well being and defense, as its unit of analysis, maintaining accountability of its rank and file and elite positions.

These are the first reasons why MR has the sound platform - because we are solid in our theoretical platform we are able to be clear, consistent and explicit - ultimately able then, to bring our resource to our people to help them transform this hyperbolic liberal milieu into our ethnonationalist and regional alliance.

READ MORE...

DanielS, in comment 147409 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 wrote:

Jimmy, while defending the enjoyable pagan sourced holiday of Halloween against the Orthodox Church, we might also take occasion to note that the Christian Church has arrogated what is the most sacred holiday to our ethnic genetic interests, which is the day following - November 1rst - in Eastern Europe it is still a day when European folks commemorate their forebears, visiting the cemetery to pay special respects. It is practiced there in cloaked manner. But reverent respect that should be directed toward our ancestors has been largely diverted by the Church and back into its Judeo-religion; worse still in the west, where the “All Saints Day” (Nov. 1) diversion has been taken so far that our ancestor reverence is but the vaguest remnant, a phantom holiday, somehow indicated on some calendars, but not observed - merely alluded-to very indirectly for those who care to look behind the etymology of the name, “Halloween”, and into its true history.

Upon reviewing the matter of Halloween, I see that I was so focused on the importance of the European day of our ancestor veneration - or what should be the point of celebration on November 1 - commemoration of our forebears (typically including a family visit to their graveside), that I lost sight of the fact that the Church was not only distracting from the true significance of the November 1 celebration for us; but also that Halloween itself was not a part of the mere diversion and distraction from the holiday. While many in East Europe see November 1 as an important holiday, Halloween still tends to be perceived by them through the churchly lens as a recent and corrupt affectation imposed from the commercial West, rather than an integral part of the holiday.

My response to Jimmy was correct in the general idea - of the Church burying our most sacred holiday - viz., in reverence of our ancestors - but I had neglected his point in fact of Halloween itself being an integral part of the holiday, not a fluffed-up and commercialized imposition to distract from the real thing:

Initiating the children into becoming one with their forebears.

As the most important, sacred, commemorative holiday practice in reconstruction of our EGI through the initiation of our true Traditional Youth is under assault by The Orthodox Church (in this case), it becomes particularly relevant to highlight against the false Traditional Youth and their Orthodox Christian religion of our debates.

Apologies to Jimmy for the initial misapprehension of his post and his purpose:

Jimmy Marr in comment 147408 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:08 wrote (emphasis added):

In evidence by the October 24th, 2015 edition of The Moscow Times, Christ-insanity is continuing to wage its age-old war against [the true] Traditional Youth.

The Education Ministry of northwestern Russia’s Arkhangelsk region has banned Halloween celebrations at local schools, citing the holiday’s harmful effect on children, the FlashNord news agency reported Monday.

The ministry’s statement said that Halloween is “incoherent to basic traditional values and causes a negative influence on fragile minds.”

The ban was instituted a week after the Russian Orthodox Church in Siberia’s Krasnoyarsk region called on local authorities to ban Halloween on a similar basis, the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper reported. Priest Maxim Zolotukhin told local STS-Prima television station that children may get depressed after Halloween because they do not understand the difference between make-believe and reality, and so evil will enter their souls.

Russia’s regional authorities have displayed hostility toward Halloween many times over the years.

In February this year, a school director in Siberia’s Khanty-Mansiisk autonomous district was fired for organizing a Halloween party at his school last year, the Snob magazine reported at the time.

And in 2013, the Omsk regional Education Minister Sergei Alexeyev issued a letter against Halloween celebrations in schools. He explained that Halloween includes “death cult propaganda” that can damage student’s psychiatric and “spiritual-ethical health,” local news website NGS Omsk reported.

In 2014, Public Chamber member Georgy Fyodorov wrote a letter to Russia’s Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky asking him to officially ban Halloween. Fyodorov saw the celebration as an “ideological security threat” to Russia and proposed the promotion of traditional Russian festivals instead, the Izvestia newspaper reported.

Inasmuch as the war against Halloween is a proxy war waged by christians against [the real] Traditional Youth, it is little wonder that metaphysical mercenaries would attempt to distort the meaning of that name and use it as spiritual camouflage. Their masters have taught them well.

Halloween Ritual for the True Traditional Youth of Europe.

ThuleanPerspective /Youtube Transcript, ‘Paganism, Part II; The Goblin & The Elf, 04 Dec 2014:

The children are not [considered] real people yet, not until they go through this initiation rite on Halloween…when they enter the realm of death, dressing up as the dead, taking on the identity of a dead person..  in a sense they become this person..  they have the same name, the same honor and the same death as the person they chose to become in this initiation ritual. The dead person, of course, is one of the dead forbears.

You can say that they believed in reincarnation.

Let us note also the ethnic genetic reincarnation.

Ibid:

So, they are returning to the Yule Tide and they are returning in the night. They are lead by the Sorcerer and the deity from farm to farm with these children to bring them back home… the families wished them welcome with some food on the table… to enable them to eat and feel welcome when they come back home.

During the Christian era, those in Church power wanted to destroy this tradition, they wanted to destroy European culture.  So they demonized these children and turned them into grotesque creatures, mocking them for their “superstitious belief in goblins” and so-forth when in reality they didn’t believe in any such things.

But the farmers could no longer put the food on a table inside the home for the children because church authorities might find out; so they had to put it into the barn.

These were not evil spirits, they were merely children returning for their initiation ritual [into the legacy of their forebears].

[Even so] the children were perceived by church people as becoming as twisted goblins [misunderstanding their transit with the dead where they were communing with elves, which were the spirit of the dead].

The children are the reborn dead relatives.

The elves were known to always sing, dance and read poetry because they are trying to preserve their memory..

This illustrates what the Christians have done to our culture. They have taken a beautiful, European, pagan religion, tradition, pagan culture, and twisted it…

..turned it into some grotesque mockery of what it really was.

The grotesque, twisted image of our religion was made by the Christians in an attempt to destroy, to weed-out our roots, to cut our roots so that our culture, our peoples would fall.

What the church could not burn they twisted.

But the European culture was beautiful, rich, advanced and most importantly, it was ours.

An argument by Mick Lately:

Mick Lately in comment 147410 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:01 wrote:

I think Halloween is being turned into perverted paganism and that it is part of the whole “weaponized anthropology” campaign. Not to mention that it’s “cultural appropriation” for non-whites to celebrate Halloween.

I would support the official ban of Halloween as a temporary wartime measure and allow it and Christianity back when the Jews and non-whites have been defeated.

A significant rebuttal to Mick Lately by Kumiko Oumae:

Kumiko Oumae in comment 147414 on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 02:37 wrote:

Weaponised against who, though? The ‘weaponisation’ of anthropology is when research of the culture and history of an ethnic group is used by belligerent groups to facilitate their mission objectives. However, our mission objective as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists is to:

1. Defeat those who try promote mass mestizaje;
2. Promote viewpoints which would enhance people’s willingness to reinforce national and regional borders;
3. Promote regional integration and common security perimeters on the basis of shared ethnic and cultural heritage, as well as shared economic interests.

In order to prevent our enemies from occupying positions of cultural power, it’s necessary to get everyone to quit looking to churches for guidance, because the churches are opposed to everything that we stand for.

There is probably nothing more that the churches would love to do in their own form of ‘weaponised anthropology’, than to re-colonise the minds of the people through some form of renewed culture war, and thus disarm them mentally before anything even gets off the ground.

You can’t just place a temporary ban on culture because [you imagine that] it’s ‘inconvenient’ for you to have to fight on that level. The enemies are not going to suspend their own culture war against you to be ‘fair’ to you in the meantime.

Jews, Christians, Muslims, and the whole liberal media combine that is arrayed against you, are not going to call truce on you if you promise them that you’ll stop celebrating Halloween. They’d just have liberals and Jews hollow it out into a purely commercialised holiday with no content at all, and Christians and Muslims would then bash it and present themselves as a false opposition to such ‘commercialism’ as part of their own recruiting drives.

Retreating from the sociocultural domain has never produced good results, not ever. In the conflict that is going to come later, these kinds of arguments that are occurring in the sociocultural domain are going to form part of the crucial groundwork that will determine the way that conflict will manifest, how it will be fought, and what the outcome of that conflict will be. Dealing with laying that groundwork can’t be put off until later. The content of the conflict and the ideas around which that conflict is fought, determine the nature of the outcome of that conflict in the event of victory.

That is part of why I am never interested in advocating collaboration with Christianity in the pre-conflict environment, not even as a cynical play. That is a losing game, because firstly, Christianity cannot be trusted to maintain a martial posture or to adhere to the ethno-nationalist or ethno-regionalist principles. In the aftermath, if collaboration with Christianity resulted in a Christian-dominated outcome, then it would mean that everything was done for nothing.

The religion issue is not a side-issue, it’s not a mere ‘question’ that is asked and answered in a little policy book somewhere. It’s a core part of the problem in the North Atlantic. Getting rid of Christianity is a necessary pre-condition to the survival of the peoples of the North Atlantic.

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?

Dresden, Germany protests migrant invasion. In the meantime, Gregor Gysi has promoted death to Germans.

Former apparatchik of the communist East German GDR government and ever the Jewish henchman, Gregor Gysi has been calling normal Germans “Nazis” for resisting their death through assimilation in waves of imposed immigration, calls for their elimination (death) as such -  to him, “a very fortunate” prognosis.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby prompt you to participate at the protest,“Live better without Nazis - diversity is our future”, on the 6th of June at 10a.m. in Neurupinn. We have to take a stand against the Nazis. Because of our history between 1933 - 1945 we are obliged to treat refugees properly. We also have to save their lives in the Mediterranean. There has to be a legal [unbureaucratic] way to get asylum in Europe. Countries like Poland - very Catholic by the way - have to be willing to accept [more] refugees. Oh, and by the way: Every year more native Germans die than there are born. That is very fortunate. It’s because the Nazis are not very good at having offspring. This decline [of Germans] is why we are so dependent on immigration from foreign countries.  - See you at the protest. Goodbye! Gregor Gysi

Oh, and by the way:
                       

Dresden, Germany protests migrant invasion

While sane Germans protest in a fight for their lives…

   
Former apparatchik of the communist East German GDR government and ever the Jewish henchman, Gregor Gysi has been calling normal Germans “Nazis” for resisting their death through assimilation in waves of imposed immigration, calls for their elimination (death) as such -  to him, “a very fortunate” prognosis.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby prompt you to participate at the protest,“Live better without Nazis - diversity is our future”, on the 6th of June at 10a.m. in Neurupinn. We have to take a stand against the Nazis. Because of our history between 1933 - 1945 we are obliged to treat refugees properly. We also have to save their lives in the Mediterranean. There has to be a legal [unbureaucratic] way to get asylum in Europe. Countries like Poland - very Catholic by the way - have to be willing to accept [more] refugees. Oh, and by the way: Every year more native Germans die than there are born. That is very fortunate. It’s because the Nazis are not very good at having offspring. This decline [of Germans] is why we are so dependent on immigration from foreign countries.  - See you at the protest. Goodbye! Gregor Gysi

Oh, and by the way:

Les armes de Satan c’est la croix de Lorraine, et c’est la même artère et c’est la même veine.

An invitation to debate

If a person browses to the TradYouth website, they will be greeted with a gigantic link to ‘the Orthodox Nationalist’, which is a page which blatantly promotes Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson.

Can the Traditionalist Youth Network explain why the blatantly Christian Fr. Johnson is a guiding influence for them?

And if a person reads through many of the articles being published by TradYouth and the Facebook timeline of its SoCal chapter, the influence of this individual and the body of tradition behind him is clear to see in their writing, because it flows through just about everything they write about.

On their ‘chapters’ page, they have the image of the ‘Christ-chan nun’ wearing a Christian cross, and the image carries the speech bubble, “Will you ‘Deus Vult’ for me?” That is a Christian battle cry from the Middle Ages. My response to their request is “Fuck No”.

The image I’ve inset in this post, and the alternative kind of cross contained in it, can be considered as a thematic counterpoint to theirs.

Before I began to write this article, I did consider sending the people at TradYouth an email privately to ask them about their logic and their behaviour. But then I realised that there is nothing that I would ask them in private that can’t also be asked in public, so I decided that they should be asked publicly for the sake of transparency.

There is also the fact that TradYouth and Majorityrights are not known for being particularly well-disposed toward each other in the first place, and that would have something to do with the fact that on one hand the TradYouth website is plastered with the symbols of Christian Orthodoxy and the sign of the Christian cross, whereas on the other hand here at Majorityrights we carry the logo of the Fleur de Lise which is the symbol of the Royal Secret whose meaning is the same as that of the Cross of Lorraine.

These are clearly not empty stylistic variations, but in fact represent a clear difference in philosophical and spiritual outlook which has manifested in design choices. TradYouth is pro-Christ. Majorityrights is explicitly anti-Christ and will remain so.

Why even ask for a debate, then?

The gulf of difference between our platforms should not be a reason for debates to be avoided. Nor should the fact that these are ‘religious issues’ be a reason to sideline them from discussion within an ethno-nationalist context. Many people in various ethno-nationalist groups have said that having frank and honest conversations about these things ‘should be avoided’ because they can be ‘divisive’. But in life, contradictions cannot really be papered over, they must be dealt with and resolved, and so we should see these differences as an opportunity for conversation rather than a reason for refusing to talk to each other.

Can anyone at TradYouth explain why it is that they think aligning themselves to Russian Orthodox Christianity is helpful to the peoples of Europe at this juncture in history? I would like to hear their explanations or their rationalisations for why they have chosen to endorse Christianity. Doing this openly would enable people to evaluate the arguments and choose for themselves.

As many of our readers may be aware, I criticise Christianity frequently, there’s a whole category for it.

However, there has been relatively little push-back. Christians and their supporters have been quiet. Almost too quiet. Conversation is needed so that ideas can be further explored.

I therefore would like to invite Matthew Heimbach or Matt Parrot to make contact with me, for the purpose of having an amicable interview and debate on the subject of religion.

Of course, I would make no pretence about my intentions, I would hope that I can convince them of the total and abject poverty of the Christian vision of humans and of the world, that Christianity lacks any kind of European core to it, and that it should be jettisoned as soon as possible. I would hope to have a debate in which all doors are barred in advance. The exits marked with excuses such as “it is tradition” and “people feel comfortable in churches” would be barred in advance.

I would also be happy to discuss the content of the book written by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, ‘For My Legionaries’, with them. Codreanu and the Iron Guard were, despite the appearance of being Orthodox Christians, persons who seem to have managed to cloak pagan and anti-Christian ideas under what appeared at first glance to be a ‘Christian’ symbolism. This was certainly in the 1930s a very tactically astute way of going about their operations.

From reading the book, one can see that Codreanu in fact instructs his followers to openly defy the Abrahamic god for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the Romanian ethnic group and its sovereignty over its own civic space. Under the dogma of Christianity, this in fact would make them effectively non-Christian. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to say that Codreanu’s dismissal of the striving for the heavenly afterlife, and Codreanu’s veneration of a figure that they referred to as ‘the Archangel Michael’ who was responsible for such instructions, was in fact thematically akin to the figure of Lucifer as described by John Milton in ‘Paradise Lost’.

Just as Lucifer in ‘Paradise Lost’ is depicted as asserting that it is better to rule on earth and rule in the underworld than to chase the ephemeral promise of some crumbs from the table in a supposed heaven, so too does Codreanu assert that it is better to defend the nation and be consigned to the coldness of the outer darkness, which is to say, ‘hell’, than it is to be a good Christian and let one’s nation be thoroughly destroyed by liberals and Jews for the mere promise of ‘heaven’.

I would challenge Matthew Heimbach and Matt Parrot to consider that, and evaluate the situation honestly.

Codreanu’s actually-manifest religious views, his laudable dedication to his people was no different than that of the pre-Christian Brythonic pagan religions of the British Isles who believed that everyone goes to one place, the underworld, and that certain geographical sites allowed for close communication with the ancestors who went there, such as perhaps Stonehenge or Newgrange. That is also not very different from those found in Japanese Shintoism, where there is no heavenly reward, there is only the Dark World which stands behind this world. The boundary between this world and the world we can’t see would be thinnest at certain locations such as in the forest at Yomotsu Hirasaka, and many other places around the globe.

With those kind of thoughts, choosing martyrdom when placed into battle is only logical, as there is nothing to lose.

Old framework, new framework

For a while now, pro-Christians have attempted to use Codreanu’s legacy as an excuse to push their false promises of the afterlife and their false morality.

I posit that Codreanu’s legacy should not be understood as an expression of Christianity, and that Codreanu’s politics should instead be interpreted as a vibrant and noteworthy expression of paganism and Luciferianism, which rises against the tyranny of the Judeo-Christian god, and which rises against the flabby pacifistic ideas of Jesus of Nazareth.

People ought to fight against having all of humanity digested and turned into the shit of multi-racial ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ in the melting-pot of the fleshy bowels of Christ.

In 1930, being tactful about that outlook and cloaking one’s real anti-Christian views, was politically astute given what the social environment was like. In 2015, with Christianity on a steep decline among pretty much everyone in the west in the 18-29 age cohort, I can see no reason whatsoever for why anyone would still be bothering to be Christian, unless they actually believed in Christian nonsense. There is certainly no political gain that can be extracted from such a pretence.

The demographic which Christian culturalists are trying to appeal to, are mostly a demographic who don’t even believe in Christianity in the first place. Christian culturalists are not only wasting everyone’s time, but also spreading Christian values, values which are deeply harmful to ethno-nationalism. If Europeans are moving away from Christianity, no one ought to be inflicting it onto them again. A move away from Christianity is the correct choice.

For anyone who may be rolling their eyes and thinking that this invitation is excessively provocative and radical, you should not regard this as an example of ‘Kumiko being edgy’. No, this idea of ‘pro-Christian vs. anti-Christian’ is a perspective which is thematically salient, because European society has had—broadly speaking—two modes of thought which have been placed in opposition to each other ever since the rise of Christianity.

The famous French poet Charles Pierre Péguy illustrates this in metaphor, which I will excerpt from:

Péguy oeuvres completes 06, page 291 (emphasis):

Les armes de Jésus c’est la croix de Lorraine,
Et le sang dans l’artère et le sang dans la veine,
Et la source de grâce et la claire fontaine;

The weapons of Jesus are the cross of Lorraine,
And the blood in the artery and the blood in the vein,
And the source of grace and the clear fountain;

Les armes de Satan c’est la croix de Lorraine,
Et c’est la même artère et c’est la même veine
Et c’est le même sang et la trouble fontaine;

The weapons of Satan are the cross of Lorraine,
And it’s the same artery and it’s the same vein
And it’s the same blood and the troubled fountain;

Les armes de Jésus c’est l’esclave et la reine
Et toute compagnie avec son capitaine
Et le double destin et la détresse humaine;

The weapons of Jesus are the servant and the queen
And every company with her captain
And the double destiny and the human distress;

Les armes de Satan c’est l’esclave et la reine
Et toute compagnie avec son capitaine
Et le même destin et la même déveine;

The weapons of Satan are the servant and the queen
And every company with her captain
And the same destiny and the same misfortune;

Les armes de Jésus c’est la mort et la vie,
C’est la rugueuse route incessamment gravie,
C’est l’âme jusqu’au ciel insolemment ravie;

The weapons of Jesus are death and life,
It’s the rugged road incessantly climbed,
It’s the soul up till heaven insolently exploited;

Les armes de Satan c’est la vie et la mort,
Le désir et la femme et les dés et le sort
Et le droit du plus dur et le droit du plus fort.

The weapons of Satan are life and death,
Desire, woman, dice and chance
And the right of the toughest and the right of the strongest.

The two divergent paths spring ‘from the same vein’, because it is a choice, a perpetually-existing conjuncture which is placed before people as to what they will fight for, and how they will live their life. Look at it socially.

All of a people’s original and beautiful traditions, along with its natural self-preserving behaviour, have been labelled as both ‘pagan’—a word which literally means ‘non-Christian’—and labelled as ‘satanic’—a word which literally means ‘adversarial [toward Jehovah]’. We live in a world where that dichotomy has been created due of the advent of Christianity.

If someone were to ask me whether I stand with Lucifer—who Christianity, Islam and Judaism would call ‘Satan’—the answer I would give to that question is of course ‘Yes, I stand with Lucifer, I stand with Satan’.

That would in fact be a logical statement, because whosoever takes up arms against Judaism, against Christendom and against Islam, is ipso facto ‘antisemitic’, ‘islamophobic’, ‘pro-pagan’ and ‘satanic’.

There’s nothing wrong with being ‘antisemitic’, ‘islamophobic’, ‘pro-pagan’ and ‘satanic’. There is no reason to bat an eyelid at such labelling.