Majorityrights Central > Category: Anti-racism

Diversity Macht Frei:

Court rules: ‘No such thing as indigenous French’

The “white French called “de souche” [of stock, or indigenous] do not constitute a “group of persons” in the sense of French law, confirmed the court of appeal in Paris, in a case in which an association confronted a rapper and a sociologist.

The Alliance générale contre le racisme et pour le respect de l’identité française et chrétienne (Agrif) [General Alliance for the respect of French and Christian Identity] had filed suit against a rapper and a sociologist who have jointly published a book and a CD in 2010 both called “Nique la France” [Fuck France], for racial insult and incitement to hatred.

The Correctional Tribunal in Paris had acquitted the two accused on 19 March 2015, but the association appealed, an appeal that related only to the civil provisions of the judgement.

The Correctional Tribunal considered that the idea of Français de souche [indigenous French] “does not correspond to any legal, historical, biological or sociological reality,” that “whiteness or the white race” is not “in anyway way a legal component of the quality of French people” and that “white French people called ‘de souche’ do not constitute a ‘group of persons’ in the sense of the law of 1881 on the freedom of the press.

In France, the Jews agitated for legal provisions that would allow them to bring lawsuits based on the concept of group defamation. This is now the main source of the hate speech tyranny that prevents the islamisation of the country from being honestly discussed. But it seems these laws apply only to the privileged ones, not to Europeans.

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.

For his insolent defiance of Roger Waters plea that he not play Israel, he might have been singing “We don’t need no education” right along with Pink Floyd .....but actually, maybe Jesse Hughes, his friends and fans could use a little. Try a caveat on Abrahamic fellowship.

Jesse Hughes, commencing an Eagles of Death Metal concert, Tel Aviv, 12 July 2015:

Now I’m also going to tell you another true story before I bring the rest of the boys up here. We decided to end the tour in this fuckin’ city because we knew we couldn’t top it once we got here. That is 87 percent the absolute truth. But then we got this letter from this cocksucker named Roger Waters (jeers from crowd). Do you want to know what I wrote that cocksucker back? Two words: Fuck You!...Fuck You! Ain’t nobody goin’ to keep me from my people here in Tel Aviv! Ain’t Nobody!

                                     
Among other blundering statements, Hughes referred to Israelis as ‘his people.’ Unless there is something that we don’t know about him, they are not his people. The crowd at Bataclan, who should be referred to as “his people”, apparently did not know either that Israelis are not their people, or perhaps did not think attending a concert of someone who said that should, would, cost them their lives.

International Business Times, ‘Paris attacks: Eagles of Death Metal defied pro-Palestine boycott movement and Roger Waters to play Israel’, 20 Nov 2015:

A video has emerged of Eagles of Death Metal berating Pink Floyd founder and anti-Israel campaigner Roger Waters at a gig in Tel Aviv months before the Paris shooting at the Bataclan theatre.

The clip, from the band’s Tel Aviv concert in July, shows lead singer Jesse Hughes offering an expletive-laden riposte to a letter sent to the band by Waters urging them to shun Israel. It has been circulated in the wake of atrocities that claimed the lives of 132 people on 13 November.

In it Hughes tells the Tel Aviv crowd the band decided to end their tour in the city because they “could not top it”. The audience then boos mention of the Waters letter before Hughes shouts: “You want to know what I wrote that c********r back? Two words: f**k you!”

Waters, who has been accused of anti-Semitism, joined the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement - an anti-Israel pressure group - in 2012. Upon joining he called out to other musicians in an article he wrote for the Guardian: “[This is] a plea to my colleagues in the music industry, and also to artists in other disciplines, to join this cultural boycott.”

Roger Waters wrote to Eagles of Death Metal to urge them to boycott Israel.

The Paris attacks brought the video of Eagles of Death Metal back into focus because the formerly Jewish-owned Bataclan theatre which in the past has hosted pro-Israel Army events, and where the band were performing the night 89 people were killed, had supposedly been harassed by pro-Palestinian supporters in 2008.

Jesse Hughes is a “devout Christian.” That explains his confusion over who “his people are.”

He was interviewed before the Tel Aviv concert by “Consequence of Sound”..

CoS, ‘Fly Like an Eagle of Death Metal: An Interview with Jesse Hughes’, 1 Oct 2015:

At 43, Jesse Hughes hasn’t become an old man just yet. With the energy of a 16-year-old, he makes the most eccentric man in the world sound like a boozy liar.

The Eagles of Death Metal frontman has an opinion — often obscenity-filled — about everything. “But I’m not a bag of wind!” he insists. Around 30 minutes after our prearranged meeting time, before Eagles of Death Metal’s show in July, Hughes appears at his trendy hotel in the heart of Tel Aviv with two Israeli locals he just met at the falafel stand down the road. He’s dressed in typical Hughes attire: black-and-white-striped t-shirt with the sleeves cut off, suspenders, light jeans, and a neon green trucker cap with “Eagles of Death Metal” printed in Hebrew lettering.

A second after we meet, he’s chatting away on a tangent. Hughes is rarely off one. He sounds bluesy, even lusty when he talks, and when he gets especially riled up on a topic, he’ll bow his head, slap his knee, and speak like a southern debutant, referring to his fans as “the kids.” Hughes is as verbose as your archetypal reverend, hardly getting through his thoughts without breaching into song and then dissolving into giggles. Present him with a handshake or a voice recorder, and the truth serum starts to work.

Yeah, I’ve been shot before. Look. [shows scar on armpit] It made a canal through one of my muscles. I’ll tell you how it went down: I was going through a really ugly divorce, and I’m a devout Christian, so divorce isn’t a concept to me. I went through a very typical, clichéd “I served you my whole life, and this is what I get” anger. I weighed about 250 pounds, I was a big ol’ redneck boy. I was managing this privately owned chain of video stores and part-time freelancing for the Republican Party and speech writing and shit like that. The most awful thing I could think of immediately was to start taking speed. I lost 80 pounds, got really depressed. My mother called Joshua [Homme] because she felt he was one of the only dudes I listened to.

He dishes it out today. During our conversation, he gets into the full specifics of being saved from addiction by bandmate Joshua Homme, how he’s already written half of EODM’s next album, and how he’s struggling to convince everyone he’s a devout Christian who gets high and uses the phrase “titty-wobbling.” He talks about his face being a nipple on his album cover as seriously as his faith. “I know what you’re thinking — my life’s a contradiction,” he admits.

It’s dark stuff, but Jesse “The Devil” Hughes has a wicked sense of humor — crushing, hypnotic, and frequently laugh-out-loud ridiculous. “My way of thinking is,” he shrugs, “it’s gonna be harder in hell for me than for y’all. I’m just not going to be the fool that doesn’t know why he’s there.”

                                             
Christianity and its Enlightened step-child play a strong part in the confused identity and allegiance of welcomers as well.. ...and in the upshot of that confusion…

________________________________________________________________________

Addendum:

Note that troll JamesUK likes to associate us with the right-wing circus and any sort of unflattering speculation that he possibly can; but I will leave that aside, at least for now in order to address this:

“Didn’t you say in a previous posting that Eagles of Death Metal represented white culture?”

I said that the Eagles of Death Metal fans represent implicitly White culture. Evidently their fans are predominantly White genetically; but the fact that the band leader, and likely a significant percentage of their fans, have a confused identity (case in point, thinking that Jews can be a part of their kin) as a result of Christianity and other Jewish crypsis, provides an excellent occasion to address those implicitly White demographics who suffer this confused identity as a result of Christianity.

I was not wrong to treat them as an implicitly White demographic, that remains true.

The band and audience alike reinforce this assumption by appearance, by the likelihood that they are predominantly, genetically White (European).

However, the band’s confused identity is misleading from the start, with their name: one associates death metal with paganism, a Nordic paganism defiant of Christianity in particular - and therefore assumes that the band and audience would have little to do with identifying as Israelis, with Judaism, or even its offspring, Christianity - let alone Hughes vehement “devotion.”

Hughes’ devout Christianity compounds the confused identity by taking his erstwhile White identity and enmeshing it with the Jewish narrative and identity, albeit as servile gentile other in relation to Israel, Jews and other non-Whites - the “undifferentiated gentile others”, as GW says.

As Hughes also made clear (unclear rather), in the CoS interview, he is quite contradicted and does not even expect to be recognized by the Abrahamic god.

His fans at the Bataclan also reflect and express this ambiguous identity, but with good natured participation in a bit of carousing, defiant music, irreverent language, devil sign, etc. I say “good natured” because they were apparently healthy, functioning people who had bearings outside of sex-drugs-rockn’roll.

Nevertheless, they lightheartedly though naively frolic with the Jewish god, tweak its nose and defy its rules for some practical latitude despite the unfortunate necessity of trafficking in its terms to some extent for the historical fact of their moral order having been entangled with it for two centuries. They are fooled by it on a profound level, however, as their seriousness, their devout service is reserved for the “other” - not for themselves - as they identify as the other.

That is in contrast the Muslims, who have their own form of puritanical servility to the Abrahamic god, submission to the Jewish god.

By further contrast to the Muslims, a certain amount of ambiguity, variety of sacrament and celebration is good and necessary in the social world of praxis - acceptance of that adds to the claim that the Bataclan audience have an aspect of good naturedness - i.e., an aspect that is not puritanical or fanatical in a way that does not allow their people to be human, social creatures and to be themselves in their particular, idiosyncratic White ways.

A homogeneous looking band and audience that accepts the misnomer of “death metal” provided the first clue that they have a good natured acceptance of some ambiguity, non-purity, i.e., an acceptance even of some relation to aspects of their natural White identity, even if only implicitly.

However, the extent of their connection to the Abrahamic religion contradicts that and brought them into the fold of its absolutizing fight, which will accept no other identity - will not accept White identity as the separate social entity that it is. Some of them came into ultimate confrontation of inhumanity to their humanity in social difference as a people separate from the Jewish god of Muslims.

The confused identity of our people at Bataclan became a confused message that the Israelis accepted disingenuously, that ISIL accepted on face value, that the band, audience, and I, allowed for in good faith - a confusion nevertheless inadvertently passed-on in the news of their death, presenting a perfect reason and occasion to sort-it-out here.

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

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

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

Dangerous clowns inside the alt-right big tent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

For any weary reader who needs a little cheer in these dark times here is a video of a speech by Zsolt Bayer, the Hungarian journalist, publicist, author, co-founder of the ruling party Fidesz, and friend of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.  It was given in September to a meeting of patriots protesting the front cover of a Soros-funded magazine Magyar Narancs which pictured Orbán adorned with a Hitler moustache shaped in barbed wire.

The speech itself is perhaps three-quarters honest, which is a definite step up from Orbán’s widely publicised and ritually deplored calls for the preservation of Christian culture and European “patterns of living”.  Among other things it reveals that influential figures in Hungary, including Orbán himself I understand, are
Tolkien fans!

My thanks to Breitbart commenter Melissa Mészáros for the link.  I might just add that Bayer’s stirring rhetoric encouraged someone named David Peppiatt to seek out a Hungarian-American blog which specialises in being nasty about Orbán.  The usual one-sided war on liberal nonsense ensued.

Not a matter of guilt, not even a matter of Christianity, Islam or capitalism, but rather the usual suspects making their agenda clear. This expression shows that something different:
                       
Frans Timmermans, the Dutch vice-president of the European Commission, said that “diversity was the future of the world,” and that Eastern European nations would just have to “get used to that.”

It is an unusually brazen assertion of “programmatic coercion”  - G.W.

It is a significant statement of the motives of the powers-that-be to impose their programmatic intent to destroy the European genome.

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

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

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

Oh, and by the way: