Majorityrights Central > Category: European culture

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.

Tom Sunic

Below is my response to “A New Chapter in the Fascist Internationale” by Alexander Reid Ross, in Counterpunch, September 16, 2015.

Mr. Alexander Reid Ross, Counterpunch

Dear Mr. Ross:

I read with great interest your article, “A New Chapter in the Fascist Internationale,” published in Counterpunch and must commend you on your polished syntax and a good, albeit somewhat hasty summary of what is awkwardly termed the “World National-Conservative Movement.”  As a long time reader and admirer of some Counterpunch authors who dispel the myth of progress and who tackle the liberal mystique of permanent economic growth, it is quite possible that we have more in common than what may appear in my critical remarks. Having ties with many so-called “White nationalists” in all parts of the world, and being also a Director of the American Freedom Party, let me try to put things into a short conceptual and linguistic perspective first.

The words ‘Fascism’ and ‘Nazism’ are constantly used as weapons to vilify people who identify as White and have a sense of White interests, to the point that these words have now become meaningless. Both have been so much subject to semantic distortions over the last 70 years, to the point that there is no longer any meaningful relationship between current movements labeled with those terms and the cultural-political movements in the Europe of the early twentieth century.  (I am sure Noam Chomsky would partly agree with that).  Instead, the term ‘Fascism’ is tossed around today as a generic locution in order to criminalize and pathologize any non-conformist White person or any group of White people by implying that they are nothing more than xenophobic haters.

Hence, if we look at Fascism or National Socialism through such demonological glasses, we run the risk of landing in the realms of the ancient Greek underworld, more worthy of the Hesiod’s and Homer’s prose and certainly not into a dispassionate Elysian field of objective historical narrative. I am probably acutely (and sadly) aware of the “antifascist meta-language,” having grown up in what was known as communist Yugoslavia. Back then “Fascist beasts,”  “Croat Fascist monsters,” “Nazi terrorists,”  were a central part of the Communist Party vernacular, and any non-conformist thinker was routinely and permanently consigned to this home-grown bestiary.  Alas, what I am witnessing now in the USA and EU media, as well as in higher education, is a recapitulation of these paleo-communist memes, albeit dressed up in more attractive attire and blessed with the legitimacy that only the elite media can confer.

I hope you have read some of the authors mentioned in your article. Otherwise, again, one runs the risk of entangling oneself in the dialogue of the deaf.  Apart from books by “mainstream” scholars such as Zeev Sternhell and Ernst Nolte, it is very difficult to find any other contemporary authors who more or less objectively document the intellectual origins of Fascism or Nationalism Socialism. Rather than describing the very real problems confronting these societies or attempting an honest appraisal of the popular appeal and economic achievements of these cultures, we see little more than gratuitous moralizing while at the same time the monstrous police states and mass murder perpetrated by the Left* during the same period are ignored.  Without wishing to sound pretentious with my own intellectual baggage, there is no way one can fully grasp the birth of the “conservative revolution,” or Fascism, or National Socialism without being fully proficient in the German and the French languages and knowing very well the cultural heritage of Europe prior to 1922 and 1933.

The fears and concerns motivating the current increase in what you would call fascist parties stem from the tidal waves of non-European immigration that are affecting almost all European countries. These fears and concerns are quite different than those that gave rise to fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, and they are quite legitimate. The attitude of the left* is that people are essentially interchangeable, so that it makes no difference who immigrates to the US or Europe, and the native Whites of those areas have no legitimate interests in preserving their political, demographic and cultural dominance. This is simply not the case.

The immigration issue is critical. The US is projected to be majority non-White in just a few years, and even European countries like the UK that have had relatively homogeneous populations deriving from what is a relatively homogeneous European gene pool for thousands of years are projected to be majority non-White within the century. The ongoing crisis centered most glaringly in Germany promises to speed the day when native Germans, whose ancestors have dominated Central Europe for well over 1000 years will become a minority.

The view that immigrants are interchangeable ignores the costs of multiculturalism in terms of increased conflict, lack of willingness to contribute to public goods like health care, and social cohesion. Thus it’s one thing for the US to have immigrants from various parts of Europe; they have assimilated very well. It’s quite another thing to have immigrants from the Middle East and Africa with very different cultures and very different psychological traits (including IQ levels), and strong tendencies not to assimilate.
                                           
This view also ignores the long history of ethnic conflict in multi-ethnic, multicultural societies. The idea that societies where Whites become a minority will live in peace and harmony is Utopian to say the least, especially given the fact that Whites are now being blamed for all the problems of non-White groups, including the educational failures of Blacks and other immigrant groups (an argument that ignores the success of East Asians in Western societies). The hostility toward Whites with their history of colonialism and expansion will not end when Whites become a minority. It is a very real fear among a great many Whites that these changes are absolutely not in their long-term interests. It is quite reasonable and makes the appeal of populist politicians like Donald Trump in the US understandable.

On the personal level, yes, I must admit, I feel more at ease talking to working class Americans when visiting a village in the Ozarks, or being a guest of honor at a simple farmer’s house in the German Harz. One finds that the common sense and political judgment of these people often surpass those of many modern scholars focused solely on demonizing movements they do not understand and promoting utopian projects that ignore human nature in favor of creating multicultural societies that are not only prone to ethnic conflict, but violate the legitimate interests of Whites who have dominated these areas for hundreds or, in the case Europe, thousands of years.

Regardless of our possible disagreements and despite the fact that you will likely dismiss me by simply classifying me as a “White supremacist” or “White nationalist” or whatever, I must point out the following: The ongoing balkanization of the USA (where voting patterns increasingly reflect racial divides) bears remarkable similarity to what occurred in the former Yugoslavia shortly before it broke down in 1991. The current EU and the floods of non-European immigrants in Europe — and yes, at this very moment there is a quasi-state of emergency resulting from the migrants/invaders swamping my native Croatia — do not bode well for a starry-eyed project of multiracial and ecumenical conviviality. When the proverbial push comes to shove, one no longer needs to study diverse Levantine or African haplotypes or immerse oneself in the books of cultural pessimists. One must then be ready to weather the storm either by voting for Donald Trump or the American Freedom Party’s Bob Whitaker, or whoever is willing to salvage one’s heritage. I am sure that in a case of emergency you will also figure out which side of the fence it is better to sit on.

Best wishes,

Tom Sunic, PhD
www.tomsunic.com
http://american3rdposition.com/

* Editor’s note: Sunic is talking about the Red Left here, and its liberal prescriptions for Whites. He is Not talking about the White Left

.......................................................
Tramp steamers leaving for Italy from Libya. Photos courtesy Louis Beam

       

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The function and conclusion of prejudices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYD Analysis

 

“At your feet or at your throat” ?
 
Frau Merkel: A problem with German character.

Is it the case that:

Germans are an enormously logical people, who are capable of wonderful math, science, engineering and technology.

However, that top heavy focus on logic causes them to have weak planks in judgment, such that they will keep on following a logic to its runaway (and/or over-correction/overcompensation), even when it is clearly socially destructive?

We’re not even emphasizing the Nazi example now, we’re talking about how, in the salient example of Frau Merkel, they are treating Greece by comparison to the migration crisis.

Nevertheless, “a rule is a rule”: just as reaction to Jews implied the compensatory rule quite exactly, the Nazis mirrored the Jews in significant, literal ways. Hitler, e.g., maintained: “an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth” (never mind that one might engage the fact that Leviticus 24 is didactic, and showing people how Not to be, by comparison to the compassion of every other chapter of Leviticus)...

Now, Frau Merkel’s regime expects Europeans to appreciate the logical conclusion of her Jewish guilt reaction, a byproduct of Jew thinking, as it were:

To the Greeks -

First principle: unanimity: “pay us back our predatory, usurious loans”, no room for social praxis and concern for ancient European human ecology and social capital.

To the waves of non-European migrants invading our homelands -

The universal principle: good will and the Christian golden rule: ”“The right to political asylum has no limits on the number of asylum seekers” - it’s an altruism and compassion, a logic of meaning and action that must continue to no end.

Though I am not well placed as a critic of German character, one does have to wonder..as I have observed before, in regard to those who say that Germans are/or should be our “leaders.”

Are a people so top-heavy on logic that they would follow it through to its logical conclusion despite what should be the obvious judgment regarding the logic’s vast social destruction to be entrusted with leadership?

It is, rather, apparent that sheer and top heavy logic is good for following rules and orders, not for leadership.

Leadership should be logical but top-heavy in judgment.

However, I am told that 30% of Germans still do Not believe that merely speaking German makes one German, so of course I do not want to exclude Germans across the board from a place at the table of leadership: just that they may not be well placed at the head of the table and certainly not as sole occupants of the table of leadership of Europe at this stage in history.

Not only is the hyperbolic liberalism of German leadership an expression of guilt riddenness, but it is a guilt riddenness for their prior (Nazi) regime’s lack of social judgment for optimal social unanimity and relations (of Europeans and others) - which has made stigmatization of sufficient racism all too easy for liberals - and worse now, a guilt ridden liberal self destruction which the rest of Europe is supposed to share in because of the Nazi lack of social judgment (which in particular cases worked deliberately against us - ! - * and generally speaking worked against us all in result) and because they are so fucking logical - as to carry an absurd lack of judgment and self destruction to its extreme!

* European countries which were targeted for elimination or demotion in sovereignty and influence are supposed to feel guilty and take part in the demise as well.

I am not well placed to critique German character as I will be criticized as being prejudiced against them, but I am for them, not against them - it is their liberals whom I dislike, as I dislike all liberals, imperialists and anti-nationalists; and I like and advocate the 30 percent of normal ones, the normal nationalists along with the ones who can be persuaded to come around.

But I feel obligated under the circumstances - am prompted by Kumiko, who is particularly angered: Not only is Germany’s leadership inviting terrorist cells, it is inviting bizarre and primitive third world practices - such as teaching boys that women are a man’s property; that it is fine to kill those who insult the pedophilic prophet…

Judgment catching up with logic but a bit late:
http://wapzku.tk/watch/KVWAIKoatWM

And of course, I hasten to add, that with this “logic” it is apparently fine to destroy the ancient EGI of Europe, our human ecologies and all that goes with it…

...and wouldn’t that logic come in handy to figure its way around and rationalize all sorts of liberal contradictions and sensible affronts to itself and its neighbors - to make good logical sense of their destruction and ours?

European brothers and sisters, Germany is not far away and its “logic” will spill over sooner or later…we have got to exercise some judgment on their behalf, ours and intervene.

We do not share in their guilt, we do not want to burden them with guilt and we can share with them our free, unburdened ethnonationalist conscience.

Kumiko noted a very interesting additional aspect to this German propensity to be top heavy in logic, that they do not seem to manage ambiguity and contradiction as well as other populations.

Inasmuch as that is true, and it seems that it might be as a pattern (again, not across the board), it would be a problem for dealings in Praxis (the social world) as Aristotle noted, where a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty is necessary for its inherent interactive, agentive and reflexive nature - thus, Phronesis (literally, practical judgment) is required and the acceptance of a certain amount of ambiguity necessary to manage social ecologies.

That seems to go to the realm of epistemology and judgment.

Prost: have a beer, relax your fore-brain so that it’s logics do not continue imperviously, obliviously apace, but lets let the liberal German leadership sit-this-one-out and concentrate on their social, mammalian brain as it cares for closer, personal relations lest their reptilian brain’s “logic” over-react, over-correct and over-compensate against those closer relations.

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.

On 02 August 2015, Robert Stark interviewed Matt Forney and they had a conversation with each other that went on for some time. One thing which leaped out to me about it in particular, is the questions rhetorically asked by Matt Forney after the 55 minute mark in the audio, which are transcribed here:

FORNEY: I’m not a Christian, but I’m familiar with Christian theology because I was raised as a Catholic—

• 1. Point to the portion of the Bible where it says that you have to slavishly support Israel.


• 2. Point the portion of the Bible where it says that you have to let your country be overrun by foreigners.


• 3. Point to the section of the Bible where it says that you have to endorse the degeneracy of gay rights.


• 4. Claiming that being a Christian is synonymous with sucking up to illegal aliens is completely counter to the idea of being a Christian.

Usually people aren’t expected to answer rhetorical questions, but these ones are too funny to resist. So I’ve inserted some numbers, and I’ll answer each one, so as to show the slavishness and unsuitability of Christianity when it comes to talking about the ethnic genetic interests of Europeans.

• 1. Slavishly support Israel: YES. (John 4:22)


• 2. Let your country be overrun by foreigners: YES. (Hebrews 13:1-2, Romans 15:7, Galations 3:26-28)


• 3. Endorse the apparent ‘degeneracy’ of ‘gay rights’: NO. (Romans 1:18-32)


• 4. Sucking up to illegal aliens: YES. (1 Peter 4:9, Romans 12:13)

Christianity asks that you should show hospitality and support for all immigrants into your countries without complaining, which runs entirely contrary to your ethnic genetic interests. At the same time Christianity does however maintain that gay people are ‘bad’ and apparently advocates persecuting them for what seems to be no reason whatsoever. Of course, how that would help anyone’s ethnic genetic interests, has yet to be determined.

Forney scores one out of four. It’s a pretty bad score, but then most people don’t seem to know what Christianity is really saying, and that’s why they keep making these pro-Christian statements, even though Christianity is complete rubbish.

Rather than having some kind of lengthy preamble to this article, it’s better to just say this directly, and in the clearest possible language.

Much has been said about Christendom, many nationalists of many different stripes have spoken about it, but the fact is that there is no ‘White Christian Civilisation’.

It’s just someone else’s spiritual framework and someone’s else’s jurisdiction. I think it’s time to shed some light on that fact, and so this will be the first of a multi-part series on the subject.

Here’s a premier example of this framework:

Huffington Post, ‘An Open Letter to White Men in America’, 24 Jul 2015, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer wrote:

Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer
President of the United Church of Christ, author of two books, Doctorate in White Privilege, Shalom Award recipient for peace commitments.

Dear White Men,

You are persons of privilege.

You didn’t earn it. More than likely aren’t yet prepared to either admit to it or lose it. This letter, written by one of you, is offered to invite you on a journey of insight, honesty, hard truth and just living.

[...]

Yes, that is a reverend saying that. At the Daily Stormer, they carried this article and there they highlighted the mainstream liberal aspect of the content, but they unfortunately did not mention the root of the matter.

The narrative of your ‘white privilege’ acting as a justification for the expropriation of everything that you have in your own lands is not an aberration or a distortion of Christianity as some Christian ‘nationalists’ would propose. Rather, this is the logical and final trajectory of what Christianity is about and what Christianity does.

It is an inescapable fact that Christian churches have a tendency to preach doctrines advocating your dispossession and extinction. The fact that Dorhauer is a Shalom Award recipient is not an accident or an aberration. Most Christian authorities are openly in collaboration with Jewish lobby groups. Occasionally there are what appears to be exceptions to this rule, such as an occasional bishop or pastor criticising Jewish cultural power. But those are exceptions that only prove the rule.

Christianity is not a European religion, it originated in the Levant and its fundamental ethnic character is one that caters to its original owners. It was Saul of Tarsus, who would later be known as ‘Paul’, who projected Christianity into the Graeco-Roman world. The doctrines that ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’, and that ‘the last shall be first’ are ideas that were comforting to the lower classes in the Roman Empire and which stifled the will of the strong by stamping out diversity of belief and of thought, and stacked up their own funeral pyre for them.

Centuries later, as Rome was becoming crippled under an internal rot caused partly by Christians, the co-opted Roman state then imposed Christianity at spear-point onto all Indo-European peoples that it encountered, and spread from there.

But how precisely does it operate? Let’s tackle that now.

READ MORE...

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...