Majorityrights Central > Category: September 11th

The satisfied working-hypothesis for ethno-nationalists in answer to the question as to why Isil and the terroristic chaos of the middle east cannot be brought under control is because Israel does not want that. Terror and chaos function provisionally to overthrow stable regimes which, as rational actors in and about Israel, can be of still greater threat to Israel in its project to secure “its realm” around Israel - in its aspiration for “Greater Israel.”

The Israeli’s Operation Clean Break is a plan that set-about to secure this “realm” with the aid of U.S. military. In marketing a theoretical false polemic between “neo-cons” and “paleocons” (the latter being the theoretical underpinning of the “Alt-Right”), Jewish interests have orchestrated American media, politicians and public to this end. 

The project first took care of Sadaam Hussein - a rational actor, his was a more secular and civically ordered regime, which was building a powerful basis for an Iraqi nation insubordinate and defiant of Israeli control of the region.

On the other hand the Saudis have already been bought-off, and act as a conduit for jihadists, munitions, chaos, propaganda and military alliance that Israel seeks to deploy in this plan - at the moment especially against Iran, as its liberalization toward rational actor status in the Iran Deal has been a great threat to greater Israel; and has provided Israel great incentive to get behind Trump for his initial stated motivation in running for President - to undo the Iran Deal.

The implication now is that Israel is aiding and abetting terroristic chaos - Isil is particularly useful to attack the stable Left Nationalist regime of Bashar al-Assad.

News Week, “Israeli Defense Minister: ‘I Prefer ISIS to Iran on Our Borders”, 20 January 2016:

Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said on Tuesday that if he had to choose between the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) and Iran on the country’s borders, he would “choose ISIS” every time.

In comments made at the Institute for National Security Studies’ (INSS) conference in Tel Aviv, Yaalon said that if the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to fall, he would prefer the militant group to control territory on Israel’s northern border rather than an Iranian proxy such as the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

He reasoned that Iran has superior capabilities to the radical Islamist group, who are being pegged back by the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq and Syria.

“In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State. They don’t have the capabilities that Iran has,” he said. “Our greatest enemy is the Iranian regime that has declared war on us. Iran tried to open a terror front against us on the Golan Heights.”

He continued that Iran has a “terror infrastructure in place in five continents,” listing Asia, Africa, Europe and both Americas.

ISIS is much weaker financially and militarily than Tehran and, with everyone against the militant group, they will fall, he said.

“We believe ISIS will be eventually defeated territorially after the blows it has been suffering, and in light of the attacks on its oil reserves,” he added.

Last year, Hezbollah operatives conducted a number of border attacks against Israeli targets while key Hezbollah commander Samir Kuntar was assassinated in a December air strike in the Syrian capital, Damascus, that the group blamed on Israel. The group receives funding and logistical support from the Iranian military.

Last week, international sanctions were lifted on Iran’s ailing economy after Tehran met all of the conditions as part of a landmark nuclear deal signed with world powers last July.

The terror and chaos that Israel and Jewish interests aid and abet have been extended to other nations, to Europe, with the aim of presenting Israel and its diaspora by contrast, as your friend and ally against Islamic terror. But you will be allowed by their auspices to defend only “western civilization” - “civilization” meaning that which falls under their Noahide, Abrahamic law - Judeo-Christian and Islamic comprador rule.

“Clean Break” motives are also evident in Nuland and Kagan’s impetuous instigation and regime changing presence in the Ukrainian conflict - with Russia, like the US and Saudi, already being compliant with Israel, there would be a motive to see to-it that rogue anti-Semitic Ukrainian nationalism is brought under Jewish control.

There is good reason to believe that like Saudi, The U.S. and the Russian Federation, that Turkey is compliant and complicit with Israeli motives as well. Interesting connections show between Trump-Flynn-Turkey-Russia and Israel.

In the case of Libya, while there were other nefarious actors as well - notably Sarkozy and American paleocons - Clean Break motives were once again evident in aiding and abetting the overthrow of the stable and rationally acting regime of Gaddafi, with similar results in the chaos of the overthrow. That being populations from the middle-east, north and sub-Saharan Africa have been surging into Europe - desperate populations, frequently disillusioned and hostile dissenters from efforts in rational nationalism such as Gaddafi’s - the Manchester terrorist was one such type from Libya and was apparently equipped with Isil theory and training.

The Nice terrorist having been from Tunisia also ties into this mindset.

READ MORE...

The White Left has NOT issued its first, or any fatwa, as Nick Cohen asserts, but what The SPLC has done is tantamount to aiding and abetting one.

One may argue that Nick Cohen is as confused as his audience about the terms “left” and “liberal”, but it is not likely that someone with the name Cohen and entrusted to a prominent writing position at The Spectator is trying to be careful about clearly describing a platform to serve the full class of White interests - i.e., a White Left, not to be confused with liberalism, a confusion of terms promoted by his fellow tribesmen, and by which they’ve been able to confuse the public for decades now.

In fact, he does indulge in a new twist. Whether he fancies himself as being descriptive of White liberals (in his view, Jews, such as Mark Potok of the SPLC, would be included as White) or he has some idea of the power of our burgeoning White Left platform, and therefore seeks to confuse it pre-emptively, he is attributing to the term “White left” logics of meaning and action which do not follow from our platform of White Left Nationalism - The White Class.

Indeed, I had discussed the case of Maajid Nawaz with Kumiko, who had explained to me the irony of The SPLC placing this man on their “hate list.”

While I am against making the distinction between “radical and moderate” Islam, as I recognize all of Islam to be harboring and wielding our destruction, whether most active in a present episode or not, I would not go so far as to put at risk to a fatwa a man who has, in fact, come to denounce the more violent and destructive expressions of Islam and is trying to encourage other Muslims to take advantage of more healthy, moderate and liberal life possibilities.

Kumiko showed me this video of a speaking engagement of Nawaz’s, where he describes his project. She and I agree that Nawaz is a bit off in his recommendations - we would ultimately prefer a full denunciation of Islam in favor of Left Nationalism for his people, but also agree that such sudden prescription is both unrealistic and would be even more dangerous to him; as would our taking his side, in defense of him against the SPLC. Kumiko figured that we would not help him, that we would contextualize him in a way that exposes him more to Muslim violence by associating him with platforms (such as this) of White advocacy; while making an association here would also expose him to further Jewish vitriol, such as The SPLC placing him on their “hate list.”

Nevertheless, we think, “of all the Muslims to put on their hate list!” ?

The last straw for me though, making it a bad option to keep silent, was this Cohen guy trying to say that “The White Left” has issued a “fatwa” on Maajid Nawaz, when in fact it is The SPLC that is putting him at that risk, with a clear signal to more radical Muslims - “have a go at him, we wash our hands of defending him in his attempt to moderate Islam.”

Now then, for a look at the article which attempts to blame something which Cohen calls “the white left” for this.

The Spectator, “The white left has issued its first fatwa”, by Nick Cohen, 31 Oct 2016:

Maajid Nawaz

[Cohen]: I have never advised anyone to use the English libel laws. I spent years helping the campaign to reform them, and am proud of the liberalisation I and many, many others helped bring. I have to admit, though, our achievement was modest.

...and hypocritical, as now you misappropriate the term and in fact libel what would be a proper articulation of The White Left, if the term were disentangled from decades of Jewish journalese confusing “left and liberal;” and understood properly by contrast - by the public, and somehow by copyright law.

Ibid: Libel in England remains sinister in intent – the defendant has to prove he or she was telling the truth – and oppressive in practice. Parliament and the asinine Leveson inquiry into the press failed to tackle the horrendous costs, and kept libel as the preserve of the rich and the reckless. You can risk spending £1 million before a case comes to court. Despite reform, libel courts remain the place oligarchs and charlatans go to suppress the truth.

Well, I will not initiate a case against the sinister intent of Jewish media, even though I believe it is their sinister intent to prevent White (as in not Jewish) people from organizing, unionizing in their exclusive defense - a defense of those Whites who are relatively innocent, who are not right wing supremacists, but are rather characteristically cooperative, non-coercive separatists: White Left ethnonationalists -  that there is by contrast an antagonism, a persistent, sinister intent on the part of (((media, academia and other niches))) to confuse the term “left” with “liberal” when it applies to Whites and a would-be “White Left” in order to keep them from defending themselves against the genocide that is being launched against them by Jewish and neo-liberal interests: by means of open immigration of exploding non-White populations, “anti-racism” (i.e., prohibition of White discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic groups, even in national interest), ubiquitous promotion of race-mixing, endless propaganda of Whites as evil, advancing non-White interests with and against the concept of “White privilege” applied across the board, to all Whites, as something to be “legally corrected” ...their right to abstain from forced contract and imposition undone - a feudal differentiation of laws which disadvantage White organized defense; compelling their mere servitude, their ultimate extinction enforced at the behest the YKW and neo-liberal PTB.

Not only would Cohen libel the term, “White Left,” saying “it has issued a fatwa” but he’s libeled The White Left also by associating it with neo-liberalism and the SPLC in its nefarious irresponsibility to put further at risk a man who is risking his safety to try to encourage more reasonable ways for Muslims.

The White Left is issuing no such fatwa against this man, and rather believes that his heart is in the right place, even if still a bit misguided.

Ibid: Last night, however, I found myself advising the anti-fascist campaigner Maajid Nawaz to sue in the London courts.  I even gave him the names of lawyers who would be happy to help. The attack he is facing is so grotesque, ferocious remedies seem the only response.

It is not “fascism” that he is campaigning against inasmuch as he is articulate - it is the right-wing feudalism of Islam and its (terroristic, if need be) imposition of imam compradores, radical shock troops and the feudal Muslim way of life against what would have been Left ethnoationlaist nations; if not for the destructive imposition as aided and abetted by neo-liberals.

Ibid: Nawaz’s enemy is not the usual user of the libel law: a Putin front-man or multinational. It is an organization that ought to share Nawaz’s values, but because of the crisis in left-wing values does the dirty work of the misogynists, the racists, the homophobes, the censors, and the murderers it was founded to oppose. It does it with a straight face because, as I am sure you will have guessed, the fascism in question is not white but Islamic. And once that subject is raised all notions of universal human rights, and indeed basic moral and intellectual decency, are drowned in a sea of bad faith.

Lets clarify what is really going on here, Nawaz’s enemies are right wingers, Jews (such as the SPLC) and neo-liberals who seek Islamic compradores and shock troops to disrupt Left ethnonationalsm.

Ibid: Nawaz is from Essex. He has fought and been beaten up by white British neo-Nazis. He fell in with Hizb ut-Tahrir while he was young. When he ended up in a torture chamber in an Egyptian jail, he abandoned Islamism for liberalism. Since then, he and his Quilliam Foundation have struggled against both the white far right and the Islamist far right. They have defended liberal Muslims and, indeed, all of us from lethal blasphemy taboos and the threat of terrorism. They respect freedom of speech, including the freedom of their enemies to speak. (When they asked me to introduce their report on online extremism, I was pleased to see them warning the state against the folly of trying to ban extremism rather than argue against it.) Quilliam and Nawaz support women’s rights and gay rights. They believe that there is no respectable reason why men and women with brown skins should not enjoy the same rights as men and women with white skins. They think they should try to stop young Muslims joining Islamic State, not just for the sake of the Yazidis they will take into sex slavery, or the civilians they will tyrannise and kill, but for the sake of the young Muslims themselves.

And now you would try to say that we, “The White Left,” are issuing a “fatwa” against a man who is trying to do this good work? Who is libelous here? Not The White Left: we issue no such fatwa. On the contrary, we commend his good intention.

READ MORE...

Muammar Gaddafi and Aisha Gaddafi.

R2P, the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ is the latest formulation which is used to rationalise just about any kind of arbitrary intervention without revealing the strategic and economic aims behind that intervention, lest those aims be subject to analysis or criticism in the international media.

Now that the situation in Libya has more or less settled into a repetitious cycle of instability of a predictably bad sort, it’s worth taking a retrospective look at the intervention, drawing together the various vectors which brought about this result.

Everyone likely remembers when Dick Cheney went on a sort of flamboyant tour talking down the Libyan intervention, because he thought it would result in disaster. The old Huguenot has many faults and has always been prone to over-extending his hand and overestimating the capabilities of the US military, but he is easy to understand because he actually is a true-believer in his own words, which means that he could at least be relied on to take the Global War on Terror seriously unlike many of his contemporaries. Cheney pointed out that even by R2P’s own logic, there was nothing to gain in terms of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ since Gaddafi had already given up his NBC weapons programme in 2003 and handed it all over to the United States.

Simultaneously, Libya had been an ally in the Global War on Terror and had collaborated repeatedly with the United Kingdom with intelligence sharing and even extraordinary rendition carried out against Islamist reactionaries of various stripes.

Cheney then invoked RAND RR637:

RAND Corporation, A Persistent Threat: The Evolution of al Qa’ida and Other Salafi Jihadists, 04 Jun 2014:

Research Questions

• What is the present status of al Qa’ida and other Salafi-jihadist groups?
• How has the broader Salafi-jihadist movement evolved over time, especially since 9/11?

This report examines the status and evolution of al Qa’ida and other Salafi-jihadist groups, a subject of intense debate in the West. Based on an analysis of thousands of primary source documents, the report concludes that there has been an increase in the number of Salafi-jihadist groups, fighters, and attacks over the past several years. The author uses this analysis to build a framework for addressing the varying levels of threat in different countries, from engagement in high-threat, low government capacity countries; to forward partnering in medium-threat, limited government capacity environments; to offshore balancing in countries with low levels of threat and sufficient government capacity to counter Salafi-jihadist groups.

Key Findings

The number of Salafi-jihadist groups and fighters increased after 2010, as well as the number of attacks perpetrated by al Qa’ida and its affiliates.

• Examples include groups operating in Tunisia, Algeria, Mali, Libya, Egypt (including the Sinai Peninsula), Lebanon, and Syria.
• These trends suggest that the United States needs to remain focused on countering the proliferation of Salafi-jihadist groups, which have started to resurge in North Africa and the Middle East, despite the temptations to shift attention and resources to the strategic “rebalance” to the Asia-Pacific region and to significantly decrease counterterrorism budgets in an era of fiscal constraint.

The broader Salafi-jihadist movement has become more decentralized.

• Control is diffused among four tiers: (1) core al Qa’ida in Pakistan, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri; (2) formal affiliates that have sworn allegiance to core al Qa’ida, located in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and North Africa; (3) a panoply of Salafi-jihadist groups that have not sworn allegiance to al Qa’ida but are committed to establishing an extremist Islamic emirate; and (4) inspired individuals and networks.

The threat posed by the diverse set of Salafi-jihadist groups varies widely.

• Some are locally focused and have shown little interest in attacking Western targets. Others, like al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula, present an immediate threat to the U.S. homeland, along with inspired individuals like the Tsarnaev brothers — the perpetrators of the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. In addition, several Salafi-jihadist groups pose a medium-level threat because of their desire and ability to target U.S. citizens and facilities overseas, including U.S. embassies.

Recommendations

• The United States should establish a more adaptive counterterrorism strategy that involves a combination of engagement, forward partnering, and offshore balancing.
• The United States should consider a more aggressive strategy to target Salafi-jihadist groups in Syria, which in 2013 had more than half of Salafi-jihadists worldwide, either clandestinely or with regional and local allies.

Now, why would Dick Cheney be going around hawking this research in defiance of the US government in 2014? We know that it is not due to the usual partisan party-political reasons, because US party-political divisions are largely illusory anyway. The only explanation is that he seriously thought that the US was doing something that he didn’t think it was ‘supposed’ to be doing.

This means that there was a fundamental rift between Dick Cheney’s view of reality, a view of reality which had evolved between 2001 and 2007, and the new (or old, depending on how you look at it) reality that had asserted itself after 2011 as Hillary Clinton happened to be steering the ship of foreign policy as Secretary of State. This is not due to a difference in character of the individuals per se, but rather, a difference in the circumstances at the time, which Cheney had not caught up to because he was no longer in office and was not subject to the countervailing winds of lobbying (this includes not only positions taken by companies, but also positions taken by whole states, significantly, Israel and its ‘Clean Break’ programme going into effect in Libya) which reflect the change in economic necessity. Cheney is still living ‘in 2007’. The logic of capital was thus partially revealed through the nature of the ‘gap’ between Cheney’s—now out of office—and Clinton’s—then in office—understanding of the situation.

After 2001, there was the perception among the Americans—or at least, it appeared that such a perception existed—that the days of leveraging Salafist-jihadists as a tool of American foreign policy had ended, because the events of 11 September 2001 had shown them that a new enemy had emerged and that this enemy was the very same Salafist-jihadism that they had been patronising in one way or another through the Cold War and its immediate aftermath. Some of the Americans seemed to actually be of that mind themselves, and so it may not have been a mere perception.

However, we live in a reality in which material economic factors have predominance over the idealist conceptions, and in cases where the two do not line up, the longer the timeline is extended, the more the economic factors come into predominance. As Friedrich Engels said:

Marx and Engels Correspondence, ‘Engels to Borgius’, 25 Jan 1894 (emphasis added):

Their efforts clash, and for that very reason all such societies are governed by necessity, which is supplemented by and appears under the forms of accident. The necessity which here asserts itself amidst all accident is again ultimately economic necessity. This is where the so-called great men come in for treatment. That such and such a man and precisely that man arises at that particular time in that given country is of course pure accident. But cut him out and there will be a demand for a substitute, and this substitute will be found, good or bad, but in the long run he will be found. That Napoleon, just that particular Corsican, should have been the military dictator whom the French Republic, exhausted by its own war, had rendered necessary, was an accident; but that, if a Napoleon had been lacking, another would have filled the place, is proved by the fact that the man has always been found as soon as he became necessary: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc. While Marx discovered the materialist conception of history, Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, and all the English historians up to 1850 are the proof that it was being striven for, and the discovery of the same conception by Morgan proves that the time was ripe for it and that indeed it had to be discovered.

So with all the other accidents, and apparent accidents, of history.

The further the particular sphere which we are investigating is removed from the economic sphere and approaches that of pure abstract ideology, the more shall we find it exhibiting accidents in its development, the more will its curve run in a zig-zag. So also you will find that the axis of this curve will approach more and more nearly parallel to the axis of the curve of economic development the longer the period considered and the wider the field dealt with.

In Germany the greatest hindrance to correct understanding is the irresponsible neglect by literature of economic history. It is so hard, not only to disaccustom oneself of the ideas of history drilled into one at school, but still more to rake up the necessary material for doing so. Who, for instance, has read old G. von Gülich, whose dry collection of material nevertheless contains so much stuff for the clarification of innumerable political facts!

For the rest, the fine example which Marx has given in the Eighteenth Brumaire should already, I think, provide you fairly well with information on your questions, just because it is a practical example.

By quoting this, am I implying now that the United States and some of its allies have been drawn into finding it economically ‘necessary’ to support Salafist-jihadists? Yes, it seems that economics has reasserted itself.

Previously I had, with some degree of confidence, said this on the issue:

Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights, ‘North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet’, 11 Jul 2015 (emphasis added):

Islamists feel that their economic and social relevance is being sidelined by the dominance of international finance capital and the national bourgeoisie of countries in the developing world who have been activated by the unbinding of the circle of North Atlantic finance that took place after the 1970s. After the 1970s, capital flowed out of the North Atlantic area and into the developing zones in the periphery.

As a result of that movement of capital, social transformations took place, which Islamist reactionaries of different sorts interpreted as being a threat to their own dominance over the civic spaces - some of these being countries, some of them being zones within countries - in the Middle East and Central Asia.

However, this chaotic process, out of which a new order will emerge, is entirely necessary and is justified by the role that the actors in the North Atlantic are playing. I use the word ‘justified’ not in the petty-moralist sense of the term, but rather, in the scientific and economic sense of the term. The international financial system exhibits its justification for existing - its historical role - through the fact that it takes its surplus wealth and uses it to wend its way through every corner of the earth looking for new ways to engender the development of productive forces. This is a role that it will continue to be justified in taking on, until such time as it exhausts its progressive potential and is necessarily sublated and superseded by new social and economic systems, ones which would be established on socialist or syndicalist foundations. There is considerable evidence since 2008 that the system of international investment is already approaching its structural limits, and that various actors are attempting to explore those limits. And that after the development and interconnectivity of South East Asia is completed, ‘zero-profit capitalism’ could next emerge.

It’s clear now that the progressive potential of American and French capitalism is drawing to a close. Whereas previously the trajectory seemed to be that these states would find themselves locked into a zero-sum conflict over the fate of the Arc of Instability, the present interest of monopoly capital in maintaining their market share in the face of competition from elsewhere, is to enter into a ‘Holy Alliance’ of compromise and retrogression in which the United States and France begin to cooperate with their former ecclesiastical and feudal adversaries against a common threat of expropriation in the local sphere. They find themselves united in a common antipathy toward socialism, to shore up their global hegemonic position.

Bold statement, right? Do I have any proof at all to justify this view? Yes. See here:

U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05779612 Date: 31 Dec 2015:

I don’t think that requires any particular comment. It practically speaks for itself.

However, could any of this have happened without tacit Russian consent? Let’s continue our retrospective:

The Jamestown Foundation, ‘Russia Placing Itself Above the Fray in Libya’, 29 Apr 2011 (emphasis added):

Russia made the US/NATO military intervention in Libya possible in the first place, by abstaining in the UN Security council vote on resolution 1973, rather than vetoing it. Russia’s March 27 abstention was a diplomatic masterstroke, poorly understood at that point by the Obama administration, which credited its “reset” for the Russian green light. As Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma’s International Affairs Committee, spelled it out: By abstaining, Russia has positioned itself to demand full observance of the resolution’s provisions by those who voted for it, and without sharing responsibility with those countries for the political consequences of their intervention (EDM, April 25).

As it turns out, the Western belligerents have undertaken this operation with insufficient forces; the US has withdrawn its most effective strike planes prematurely from action; and NATO — to which the US has largely devolved the operation — fights with one hand tied behind its back, unable to reinforce and escalate as long as Russia does not approve this via the UN Security Council, or by some tacit arrangement.

Arming the rebels is a poor option because it would simply prolong the conflict without a decisive outcome, absent of a massive US/NATO offensive. The top rebel commander, General Abdel Fattah Yunis, has rushed to Brussels, with a shopping list of weapons for insurgent forces that are yet to be trained. “We don’t mean light arms,” Yunis clarified for the press in Brussels. He wants Apache helicopters, anti-tank missiles, and torpedo boats for the rebel forces. “NATO has everything,” he judged (Interfax, April 28).

Russia will not necessarily or permanently veto a massive US/NATO offensive. Moscow will almost certainly negotiate its position, seeking trade-offs on issues of priority interest to Russia. For the time being, it can de facto tolerate an incremental escalation of offensive operations, insufficient for Western belligerents to win quickly, but sufficient to entangle them in yet another protracted conflict. If this scenario materializes, Moscow plans to emerge in some mediator’s role above the fray. And irrespective of the tempo of military operations, Russia is set to collect a windfall on European oil and gas markets, due to the halt in Libyan supplies for an indefinite period.

And:

The Jamestown Foundation, ‘Russia Unveils Political Objectives In Libya’, 21 Apr 2011 (emphasis added):

Based on statements by Medvedev, Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov, and other officials (“Moscow Positioning to Exploit Libya Stalemate,” EDM, April 21), Russian objectives at this stage in the Libya conflict can be summed up as follows:

1.  An early ceasefire in place, to be followed by mediated negotiations between Muammar Gaddafi’s government and the insurgents. Russia opposes regime change in Tripoli, but seems noncommittal on two key issues: Gaddafi’s personal departure from power and Libya’s territorial unity. With or without Gaddafi, an early ceasefire in place would result in dividing Libya de facto into eastern and western territories, pending an uncertain outcome of negotiations between Tripoli and Benghazi.

2.  Adherence to the UN Security Council’s existing mandate, which is limited to enforcement of a no-fly zone. Russia tolerates US/NATO air strikes in support of the outgunned insurgents, but opposes any ground operations, or arms supplies and training, to the same insurgents. Such prohibitions ensure the military superiority of pro-government forces, while the air strikes merely help the insurgents to fight defensively. Thus, Russian policy favors an inconclusive, open-ended civil conflict in Libya.

3.  No legitimate US/NATO actions without the UN Security Council’s, i.e. Russia’s, consent. Russia wants the Security Council to evaluate NATO’s compliance with the relevant resolutions on Libya. Such deference to the United Nations (instrumental in Moscow, ideological in the Obama administration) can open a way for Russia to affect NATO policy decisions through its role in the UN Security Council.

4. A halt on Libyan oil and gas supplies to the European continent. Russia gains from the unexpected interruption of those supplies and is interested in a prolonged halt. This has become, tacitly but indubitably, a Russian objective in the Libya crisis. Thanks to this conflict, Russia free-rides on higher prices for its oil and gas; it can increase its market share in Italy, Austria, Germany, and potentially other European countries; and gains more lobbying power for Russian energy projects that increase European dependence on Russian supplies.

Beyond the objectives linked directly with this conflict, Moscow has a broader interest in seeing the US and NATO tied down in wars of choice and other protracted confrontations. These increase Russia’s leeway for action in ex-Soviet [Central Asian] territories, Russia’s top priority. Moscow must welcome the disproportionate allocation of Western resources to expeditionary wars from shrinking defense budgets in NATO Europe, where lack of military investment stands in contrast with Russia’s ambitious military modernization program.

So, that’s that. My intent was not to rehash things that are already known, but rather, to draw a view of the conflict which may not be known to the average observer, particularly not observers taking the positions favourable to Russia that have become standard to “WN” and “the Alternative Right”. Positions which are of course completely at odds with the actual nature of the Russian Federation.

Part two will fill in some gaps on the role of Israel and Ethiopia in the Libyan conflict and its aftermath, as both countries made strategic gains as a result and were invested in the outcome. So stay tuned for that.

The Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September 2001 has now had the 28 pages relating to Saudi Arabia declassified.

This means that an area of this document that used to be completely covered in black bars, now is almost completely visible. The Saudis were strongly opposed to having this section declassified and made available, as was the executive branch of the US. However, contradictions between different factions in the US Congress has led to a situation where it has been declassified.

Predictably, the framing that the western media has given it, is to try to portray it as though there is nothing interesting in the document. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every paragraph is actually interesting.

Here is a small selection of what is inside, with highlights placed on it by me:

That is just a narrow selection of what is inside the document. I leave it to our readers to decide whether it looks interesting or not.

We should never forget that the attacks of 11 September 2001 were not just an attack against the United States, but rather an attack against the whole world. The centre of world finance, albeit flawed, had not exhausted its progressive potential, but it was attacked by the most regressive and most backward social forces. It is incumbent on us all to acknowledge where that attack came from and who supplied the ideological and logistical support which made it possible.

It should be clear that when the next memorial for the 11 September 2001 attacks is held, it should not be a time to make an oath of peace. Rather it should be a time to renew our intentions and recommit ourselves to permanent and neverending global war against all those who threaten to pull us asunder.

[Download PDF]

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.

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

Summary

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

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

That sounds about right to me.

Once upon a Time in Eurasia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shaking the Kaleidoscope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failure to Understand the Threat Environment

Now we see liberals doing this:

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

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

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

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

[...]

And:

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

See for example:

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

[...]

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

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

Putting the Car into Gear

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Motive Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

By Lasha Darkmoon, April 18, 2015

It is now only too clear that Americans have lost their country. The Jews are our masters and we are their slaves. What can we do about it?

An abridged adaption by Lasha Darkmoon of a recent article by Video Rebel.

              Benjamin Netanyahu: “9/11 was good for Israel.”

9/11 finally revealed to us the extraordinary chutzpah of our Jewish masters.

That the Israelis did 9/11 with the help of Jewish collaborators in PNAC and AIPAC has become all too apparent to the cognoscenti. The hidden criminality behind this event has been cleverly covered up by our Jewish owned media.

9/11 was a definite declaration of war against America by Israel.

The Israelis wired World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition. Tower 7 was never struck by a plane. Yet it fell down in 6.5 seconds.

The BBC was told by the Rothschild-owned Reuters news agency that WTC 7 had collapsed an hour before it did. America was still on Daylight Savings Time but Britain had just left Summer Time, so a confused BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 fully 24 minutes before it happened in New York.

Knowing that your government can kill the President and blow up buildings with Americans inside, as in Oklahoma City and in New York, helps to restrain hostile criticism of the government. People are nervous and say to themselves, “If they can kill 3000 innocent Americans for Israel and get away with it, what chance do I have?”

9/11 unleashed America’s “War on Terror” against various Muslim countries unable to accept direct invasion and conquest by Israel. This was America doing Israel’s dirty work for it. Israel claims all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. The War on Terror is simply a process allowing Jews to gain control of non-Jewish lands.

  The War on Terror has cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars to date. 9/11 was used to justify military actions that have killed and maimed millions of people in the Middle East. Some of these people were Christians, but the majority were Muslims. Their descendants and friends, the one who survived the initial carnage, have been radicalized as a result. They now have every reason to seek revenge against their aggressors — the ones who perpetrated 9/11 and then used it as an excuse to plunder Islamic lands.

                                                            §

READ MORE...