Vestiges in Christianity of Jewish thinking about the gentile have produced the following pathologies in the European religious life:

a) the replacement of the subject’s relation to tribe and kind with a relationship with “God”,

b) the related turn away from existenz (consciousness) in nature and life and to belief and proposition (salvation for an ever-lasting life after death),

c) the related notion of the immortal soul as the focus of concern.

All three leading directly to the liberal, ie, post-Christian, focus on “the individual” as a deracinated, sexually ambivalent agent busily “breaking all the bounds” of Nature to be “free”.

d) In the absence of relation to tribe and kind, the related notion of (non-possible) boundless love for all men and, specifically, non-reciprocal altruistic works. These, of course, operate to drench the subject in a sense of “Christian righteousness” and self-sanctification (which equate in the liberal teleology to narcissism and feelings of moral superiority).

e) The imposition of a hyper self-critical moral regimen of uprightness (particularly in regard to religious piety and devotion, dogma, sexual repression, the aforementioned charity to the Other, etc) that is perfectly unrelated to the experience and knowledge of consciousness. It is not the object of Christianity that the subject should experience the liberative process:

absence ◄ habituality (mechanicity) ◄ immersion ◄ negation ◄ reverie ◄ sloth ◄ passivity ◄► intent ► attention ► stillness ► detachment ► affirmation ► appropriation ► presence ► non-ascription of identity ► self-annihilation ► Being

... but that he/she should busily concern his/herself to shape his/her life and actions in accordance with Jewish millenarianism. The Christian gets eternal life after death, the tribe of the Jews gets G_d’s gift of the world in life.

Yes, the North Atlantic was completely destroyed, but for a wonderful moment in time we had no Islamophobic comments on Facebook!

There are few things in politics more fulfilling than seeing greed and fear—which are not ‘bad’ emotions, it’s all about context—combine to create genuinely good performance art, a kind of art that is a work of genuine originality. That’s how it is with the Facebook censorship story, it just gets better by the day.

The law firm Jun Lawyers, which specialises in IT Law and is headed by Jun Chan-jo, has seen an opportunity for publicity and profit. It is going to be found through the fact that between Angela Merkel, Heiko Maas, Anetta Kahane, Eva-Maria Kirschsieper and Mark Zuckerberg, they have virtually no capability at all of actually policing all the ‘hate speech’ that now exists on Facebook due to the reaction of a sizeable number of German citizens to the migrant influx that Angela Merkel herself invited into Germany.

The continued existence of ‘hate speech’ all over Facebook means that the liberal government is violating its own laws and its own constitution. Since Facebook is also possibly violating those same laws, and since none of them can do a single thing about it without installing something akin to the ‘Great Firewall of China’ or the ‘Great Keyword Filter of South Korea’ —except aimed at the all-pervasive ‘Far Right hate speech’ rather than say, ‘reactionaries’, or ‘Far Left Marxists’, or ‘anarchists’—Jun Lawyers can be sure that the German legal tangle is a gift that will keep on giving. The liberal government has effectively promised to win at whack-a-mole, has made it illegal to lose, and is now finding itself unable to stop losing.

Now finding themselves trapped in a forest of the censorship laws of their own making which they are legally obligated to enforce, and with social media being used to propagate messages of ‘hate’ toward everyone and everything, the liberal-capitalist occupied German government is considering suing Facebook, the German court system is considering whether to find the German government to be in violation of its own constitution, while the Jun Lawyers firm is suing both the liberal government and Facebook simultaneously.

I would urge all ethno-nationalists out there not to be angry with Jun Chan-jo. His name will appear a lot in the media going forward, but it is prudent to regard him as the ‘Gordon Gecko’ of IT Lawyers, and to take a tolerant stance toward him. I’ve heard some unfortunate stories about people sending him hateful emails and tweets which insult him on the basis of his Korean ethnicity and so on. Please do not do this to him. It’s just business, isn’t it? Jun Chan-jo should not be regarded with hatred, he should be regarded with love, because he’s just doing his job and he’s doing it very well.

Let’s remember the relevant section of that famous speech that Gordon Gecko made in the 1987 film ‘Wall Street’:

Gordon Gekko, ‘Wall Street’, 1987:
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.

The aggregate effect of the self-serving actions of Jun Chan-jo is that he’s basically calling the liberal government and Facebook on their own bluff and forcing them to try to follow through on their own laws. He’s performing the socially useful and totally logical function of holding the liberal government and the clique of Jews who own Facebook to account for the laws that they themselves committed to. But the government can’t comprehensively follow through on these laws, because it’s operationally impossible for them to police all of the things which are being said about Muslim migrants daily on social media in Germany. All the state apparatus can really do is strike a small number of ‘offenders’ randomly, and then when this proves ineffective, it turns on itself to play internal blame-games in response to legal challenges.

Look for yourself at the circular firing-squad which has manifested:

McClatchyDC, ‘Germany considers charges against Facebook for hate speech’, 21 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

Highlights:

• Chastened by its Nazi past, Germany long ago banned incitement of racial hatred
• Refugees crisis has prompted posts that many feel violate those laws
• Posters have been charged, and Facebook officials might be

BERLIN—The anti-refugee post on Facebook by a 29-year-old Berlin woman last spring seemed little different from many of the hate-filled rants that pop up on social media sites.

“Let’s get rid of the filth,” she wrote. Then, referring to a series of arson fires that have destroyed refugee housing under construction across Germany, she continued: “many more refugee centers will burn, hopefully with the doors boarded up.”

But there was a difference between her words and many others that appear online: She was a German, posting in Germany. And while social media globally might assume a more American character of erring on the side of free speech over censorship, Germany does not share this view when it comes to hate speech.

The woman was charged with violating Germany’s hate speech law, convicted and sentenced to five years of probation. She’s not the only poster to have run afoul of the law: A 25-year-old man from the small town of Passau in Bavaria was fined 7,500 euro (about $8,500) for a Facebook post offering to deliver “a gas canister and hand grenade, for free,” to a group of asylum seekers. A 34-year-old Berlin man was fined 4,800 euro (about $5,500) for posting: “I’m in favor of reopening the gas chambers and putting the whole brood inside.”

Now, with the swelling number of refugees prompting still more such posts, German prosecutors are considering going after Facebook itself for acting as a home for posts that advocate racial hatred and violate laws against neo-Nazi speech.

German prosecutors are investigating possible charges against three Facebook managers, prompted by a complaint that they failed to act against racist comments about Europe’s refugee crisis.

The complaint came from German attorney Chan-jo Jun, of Wuerzburg. In it, he claimed to have flagged more than 60 Facebook entries that would violate German hate-speech laws. In an interview in Die Welt newspaper, he noted that the posts he flagged – some even featuring Nazi insignia and people posing while giving a Nazi salute – are strictly forbidden by German law.

But, he said, Facebook responded to his complaints by saying the content didn’t violate Facebook’s community standards, and the posts were not removed. He made copies of the posts and sent them to Facebook’s German managers by registered mail.

“We need to put an end to the arrogance with which some companies try to translate their system of values to Europe,” he said.

In the complaint he filed, he noted, “Facebook Germany encourages the dissemination of offensive, punishable content through its actions in Germany.”

Germans have complained for years about what they see as warped morality on Facebook and other U.S.-based social media sites, where nudity is strictly controlled but posters are allowed to spout hate-filled screeds that Germany outlawed after the Nazi reign of Adolf Hitler.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas recently announced that Germany would establish “a task force to combat hate speech on social media platforms, notably Facebook, and a number of social networks, including Facebook, are to take part.”

“Racist, inciting statements are inconsistent with our system of values and cannot be justified under any imaginable aspect,” he said. “One thing is clear: If Facebook gets complaints about racist and xenophobic messages that violate criminal laws, then the company must react and delete such posts quickly and reliably. . . . There must be as little space in social media for racism and xenophobia as there is on the street.”

Facebook has agreed to take part in and partially fund the task force, but for many it’s showing too little concern about a matter Germans take seriously.

Facebook has announced measures to counter hate speech. However, in the past it has also noted that the site “allowed discussions on the network to be conducted using robust diction.” Overall, German officials claim they have received word from Facebook that it prefers a policy of “discuss, not delete,” in many cases.

German news stories have quoted German Facebook policy manager Eva-Maria Kirschsieper as defending her company’s policies by noting that Facebook reaches a billion users far beyond Germany’s borders.

“It is a constant challenge to balance the interests of this diverse community and we are constantly working to adjust our policies and procedures to be even more effective and sensitive to the concerns of local communities,” she said.

Konstantin von Notz, a member of the Green party who is considered the group’s top expert on the Internet, questioned whether Facebook is following its own anti-hate speech guidelines. He noted that members of his party have been attacked on Facebook and have filed criminal charges. “Some of what is being posted not only goes against German law but also against Facebook’s own terms of business,” he said.

This week, the German tabloid Bild ran a two-page spread of nothing but hateful Facebook comments, complete with user names and profile photos. The comments were directed at the large number of refugees seeking asylum in Germany, and those who support them.

“Green pig, hang them all,” said one post directed at Claudia Roth, a pro-refugee Green politician. Another was more general: “A bullet for every Muslim and their supporters.” “Muslims are worse than cockroaches. We don’t want Islam in Germany and Austria,” read another. Another poster, identified as Silvio Bettin, asked, “Aren’t we all a little Nazi?”

The best thing that can happen is for this chaos to continue. It’s an unlimited and unwinnable censorship battle which the liberal-capitalist occupation government in Germany has plunged itself into. About 35 million migrants in total may be heading toward Europe, and Germany is refusing to permit political discussion of Angela Merkel’s monstrous open-doors policy to take place on the public political stage. So, the conversation persists on the internet, and then the liberal government chooses to include such conversation under the rubric of the enforcement of its ‘racial hatred’ censorship laws.

If the liberal occupation government wants to adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward ‘hate speech’ and if they promise to follow through on that impossible task, then I give my warmest regards and a jaunty salute to anyone who is able to engage in culture-jamming or legal-jamming actions to put that ridiculous censorship system under stress. The liberal occupation government might as well be trying to censor discussion of the weather.

To all the patriotic Germans out there, I encourage you to keep posting ‘offensive’ things, and to keep organising and engaging in street actions, and in so doing, keep jamming up the liberal censorship system.

Dutch TV subtitle: “The European Union and Turkey together will accelerate Turkey’s accession.”

Even the title of this article does not do enough to convey the scale of the stunningly disingenuous ‘negotiation’ that Angela Merkel engaged in on Sunday. It was not a negotiation, it was Merkel just taking Europe’s queen piece and both rook pieces off of the chessboard and tossing them through the window as Turkish mouths widened in grotesque delight.

As is well known, many of the migrants that are flowing into Europe at Angela Merkel’s own invitation—and because of the perverse incentives created by governments like Germany and Sweden—make their transit through Turkey before arriving in Europe. At the same time, Merkel has been facing an internal party revolt as various opportunists are taking the crisis as a chance to challenge her leadership. Some others are revolting against her because the number of migrants that their regions are being asked to accept are more than their infrastructure can ever hope to efficiently handle.

Under these pressures—particularly the pressure arising from the fact that Merkel’s concept of ‘no upper ceiling to migration’ was bound to clash with material constraints eventually—Merkel then found herself thrust into a negotiation with Turkey. The European Union had attempted to bribe Turkey with 3 billion euros, but the Turks decided that it was not enough.

So Merkel went to Turkey and offered them a faster track toward EU accession and visa-free travel, in addition to the bribe that had been previously offered.

Predictably, Erdogan and Davutoglu immediately decided to retract their side of the pseudo-informal ‘agreement’ as soon as Merkel went home. They have clarified that they actually made no promises to stop the migrants within their territory from travelling into Europe, ultimately. In fact, they have no intention of doing anything to stop the migration wave itself either:

DW, ‘Turkey demands additional EU funding to address migration’, 19 Oct 2015:

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that an agreed sum of 3 billion euros ($3.4 billion) in return for Turkey’s cooperation in stemming the flow of migrants in Europe would not be regarded as sufficient.

Speaking on Turkish television one day after German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Istanbul on Sunday, Davutoglu said that the money would come from the “IPA” fund - money already earmarked for Turkey as an EU membership candidate . He said that Turkey wanted additional cash.

The 3 billion euro IPA fund proposal is no longer on the table, as we have said we will not accept it,” Davutoglu said. “As for fresh resources, we’re talking about a 3 billion euro amount in the first stage. But we don’t want to fixate on this because the requirements may go up, and the assessment for this would need to be done annually.”

Tit-for-tat diplomacy

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday offered Turkey the prospect of support for faster progress on its bid to join the European Union as well as an accelerated path to visa-free travel for Turks. This followed the summit in Brussels last week where EU leaders had agreed on a migration “action plan” with Turkey, where the figure of 3 billion euros ($3.4 billion) had been discussed.

Chancellor Merkel on Sunday had hailed as “very promising” progress on an EU-driven “action plan” after talks in Istanbul with Davutoglu and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Both Turkish President Erdogan and Davutoglu, whose ruling AK Party faces a general election on November 1, appeared keen to avoid any impression of weakness in dealing with European nations. They said earlier the EU had only recently realised Turkey’s value in the crisis.

Davutoglu: Turkey ‘not a concentration camp’

Prime Minister Davutoglu caused further controversy on Monday, saying that his country was “not a concentration camp” and that it would not host migrants permanently to appease the EU.

“I said this to Merkel too. No one should expect Turkey to turn into a concentration camp where all the refugees stay in,” Davutoglu said.

The talks had however resulted in a “positive response” to the government’s request for visa liberalization, he said.

His comments came as the flow of people along the so-called “Balkan Route” into Europe via Turkey continued, with thousands of people streaming Monday into the Balkans, where tighter border controls forced people to sleep in freezing temperatures. More than 630,000 people have landed on Europe’s shores so far this year, most of them making risky sea crossings from Turkey to Greece.

ss/msh (Reuters, AFP)

All of those events were actually absolutely unnecessary from a straight power perspective. Why? Because, while Turkish politicians have a lot of bluster, and while they can deploy the threat of unleashing the migrants, the Turks were nevertheless negotiating from an extremely weak position.

Despite having had historical cultural connections to the regional groups to their west, south, south-east and east, Turkey has spent the past 20 years burning all of its bridges in all directions. In summary—and it is definitely a summary—Turkey’s position looks like this:

• Westward, they’ve been unable to make much of an advancement toward European integration, and still have infamously bad relations with Greece over the issue of Cyprus and a variety of other issues.


• To their south, they’ve tried to play neo-Ottomanist games and ended up with total chaos and no strategic gains whatsoever. Their only actual friend there remains—perhaps ironically—Israel, because Turkey historically shares some aspects of its military intelligence with Israel and continues to do so today. Unsurprisingly, this does not help Turkey to further its neo-Ottomanist fantasies in any way in the Middle East.


• To their south-east they are faced with an increasingly Kurdish population which is territorially coincident with the ancient land that they refer to as part of ‘Kurdistan’. By the year 2050, both Turks and Kurds will have gone through a population correction—a decline which must take place—but the asymmetric nature of that decline will be characterised by a change in the ratio of Turks and Kurds. The overall number of Kurds will have increased relative to the number of Turks, so that about 50% of the people in Turkey by then will be residing in homes where Kurdish is the first language. The geographic area where those Kurds are and will be living, is a place which also happens to potentially have a significant amount of oil play under it and comprises almost 40% of the territory of Turkey.


• To their east, Turkey had been more or less ignoring Central Asia and letting it sit in squalor until China decided to start making economic inroads there which are only becoming more integrated, at which stage Turkey made the monumental mistake of funding Uigyur Islamic terrorists in Xinjiang province to destroy Chinese infrastructure. China immediately responded by threatening to fund and arm Kurdish Marxist-Leninist terrorists to erode the territorial integrity of the Turkish state. Since Turkey did not stop funding the Islamists in Xinjiang, China seems to have gone forward with its threat, as the new presence of Chinese weapons among the PKK arsenal would indicate. Evidence of such a presence would be that a year after the warning had been given, 1690 of the machineguns and 40 of the rocket launchers that Turkey had captured from the PKK were of Chinese origin. The Turks have also recently taken to impotently complaining about how sympathetic the western media is to the PKK. Overall, the net gain for Turkey in that area has been somewhere in the range of nil.

Turkey is not some shrewd player. It’s one of the most clownish and absurd players in the world at the moment, and although it has experienced some significant economic growth internally, its foreign policy is a complete shambles and it is nowhere near to being a serious world power.

Should we really believe that Merkel is so stupid that she could not find anything to use to twist the arms of the Turks? The Turks should never have been in a position to be the ones making any demands there.

Any European negotiator who wanted to really play the game the tough way could have given a variety of responses that could twist the arms of the Turks based on the above facts, such as:

• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just don’t talk to you about EU accession ever again, until you remove the remnants of the Turkish Army from Cyprus?”


• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we cancel all the NATO events that are on the calendar concerning Turkey?”


• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we continue using the National Endowment for Democracy to assist your domestic political opponents so that they can erode your electoral powerbase and replace you with someone who will run Turkey in the way that we want?”


• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just ignore you and hedge against you demographically on a 30 year time frame, cultivating links with Kurds in the eastern part of your country so that we can encourage them to defy Ankara later and block you from having political control over a large section of your domestic energy resource base?”


• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just misplace boxes full of weapons and ammunition into the hands of the PKK? I’m sure you remember what that was like for you the last time we did that. In fact, since the PKK does so much independent illegal fundraising inside European countries, we could just stop policing them at all and see how you like that?”


• “Do you understand the situation you’re in? How about we just close the border between Turkey and the European Union, and build a giant fence surmounted by barbed wire and security cameras? The amount that it costs to take care of the migrants for a week is probably the same amount as it costs to build the fence.”

Those kind of responses from a European negotiator, would have been the correct signalling and would have likely produced a much more satisfactory response from Turkey.

Rather than doing anything like that, Merkel instead went in and sat down on a golden throne next to Erdogan, and followed the exact choreography that the architects of Erdogan’s election campaign wanted her to follow. She let Erdogan—a man who literally has been implicated in electoral fraud multiple times and is presiding over a ramshackle failure of a foreign policy—look strong, let him look competent, let him look like he was in charge, and gave him absolutely everything he wanted, absolutely for free.

No one is that absurdly fucking stupid by accident. Merkel had to have been doing that on purpose. That is the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached. It really is.

Furthermore, whose idea was it to send Merkel—a person who actually wanted the migrants to enter Europe in the first place—to have a negotiation with Turkey to try to keep the migrants out of Europe? I would love to know who was responsible for that absolutely stupid idea. Who on earth in their right mind would send Merkel to negotiate for the defence of Europe’s borders while knowing about all the pro-migration actions that she had engaged in prior to that?

It is appropriate that her name is Morano...
                                                   

PARIS — Nicolas Sarkozy is threatening to strike a member of his center-right Les Républicains from the party’s ticket for the French regional elections in December ...after MEP [Nadine] Morano said Saturday [September 26th] that France was a “Judeo-Christian country … a white race that welcomes strangers.”

What is apparently happening here is that Nadine Morano, true to her name, is attempting to use Jewish crypsis to include Jews as “part of the ‘White’ race”... and that is probably why she has been able to get away with putting the two terms - White and race - together at all in a political context. Otherwise, her “controversial statement” in “defense of Judeo-Christianity” wouldn’t be worth a second thought.

What merits re-attention to Morano is this, however. It seems that indeed the masters of discourse are trying to create a false solution to a false polemic and some right wingers are taking the bait: French “intellectuals” (read, “Jews”) are trying to frame a discourse where some “Leftist” academics are going “rogue” and becoming “rightists.”

Of course there is no mention of the Jew in this “new academic amalgam of left and right” but rather an attempt to create an “intellectual framework” to ruse a coalition against Marine Le Pen for the extent that she represents true ethno-nationalism, i.e., as a representative of the native French - which her father knows very well does not include Jews as “White” nor “Judeo-Christianity” as their rallying cry.

So, lets look at what is behind her, starting with the latest bullshit artist who would try to dupe native Europeans into thinking that he is on their side. His name is Michel Onfray and the Jewish media is trying to create a sensation about how this “former leftist” is now incorporating “the right.”

                                   
Right-winger Sarkozy has new company from “former leftist intellectual” Michel Onfray

As one reads through the media gibberish, however, it is apparent that Jewish academia is encouraging him to “turn rightward” in order to enable Jews to assimilate Whites, White interests, turn them away from authentic ethno-nationalism and toward a myopic focus against Islam on behalf of “we, the multi-cultural and pluralistic Europe.”

J’accuse: Leftist intellectuals turn right

Politico, “Unusual ideological bedfellows in France are uniting against globalization and the euro”, Oct. 19, 2015:

PARIS — When the newspaper Libération last month accused self-professed “left of the left” philosopher and best-selling author Michel Onfray of “doing the [far-right party] Front National’s bidding,” French intellectuals circled the wagons.

Their definitions of left and right, not mine.

..to the rescue from left and right to defend Onfray, they did what intellectuals do in these cases: organize a public debate.

Intellectuals?

The headline of the event, to be hosted at the Maison de la Mutualité on October 20 by political weekly magazine Marianne..

Marianne magazine, created by Axel Kahn, the son of a Jewish father, Catholic mother…the magazine is now owned by Robert Assaraf, a Moroccan Jew ...the magazine calls Nicolas Sarkozy “a right wing candidate.”

In support of its sometime contributor Onfray, sets a new standard for navel-gazing: “Can we still debate in France?”

Spoiler alert: The fury stirred up by the controversy offers a good clue to the answer.

Onfray is only the latest French thinker whom government-friendly media and Socialist party officials accuse of pushing ideas similar to the far-right - on immigration, the role of Islam in society and the need to restore France’s battered sense of self.

Ah yes, now that Islam is becoming a bit much, enough of Sarkozy’s right-wingishness, some are even assimilating the “far-right” to take an audacious stance against…  immigration!

They include the moralist philosopher Alain Finkielkraut ..“a former left-wing radical and now member of the French Academy who has written several books on the waning of France’s traditional republican culture and the country’s “unhappy identity” (the title of one of his books);

“Alain Finkielkraut (born 30 June 1949) is a French essayist and public intellectual. He has written books and essays on a wide range of topics, many on the ideas of tradition and identitary violence, including Jewish identity and antisemitism, French colonialism, the mission of the French education system in immigrant assimilation, and the Yugoslav Wars.”

Régis Debray, a 1960s companion of Che Guevara who later became an adviser to former Socialist president Mitterrand;

...known for his theory of mediology — a critical theory of the long-term transmission of cultural meaning in human society — and for fighting with Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara (in Bolivia in 1967) and advancing Salvador Allende’s “Marxist” régime (Chile, early 1970s)

Eric Zemmour, a far-right journalist and TV debater whose book “Le suicide français” (‘The French suicide’) on “the 40 years that destroyed France” became an unlikely best-seller last year;

Éric Zemmour was born in Montreuil (today in Seine-Saint-Denis) on August 31, 1958, to an Algerian family that came to Metropolitan France during the Algerian War. He identifies as a Jew of Berber origin, and above all as a French Jew.

..even Michel Houellebecq, recluse novelist whose book, “Submission,” describes a future France as an Islamic theocracy.

Besides Jews in support, Onfray has a Marxist revolutionary and a gentile who is willing to go to jail in order to fight Islam (with Jewish blessing). These are supposed to be our friends. They were “the left” and now they are “the right”, or leaning “right”...

What they don’t know is that we are The White Left and we don’t buy their shit for a moment.

Let’s carry on then…

The new ‘new reactionaries’

The ‘controversy’ has simmered for a long time. In 2002 the ‘left-leaning’ magazine Nouvel Observateur was already putting Finkielkraut on its cover to wonder whether he was part of the “new reactionaries.”

Not even a good bluff at false opposition.

It is now pervasive and part of the permanent French debate. It hasn’t been restricted to the realm of high-brow discourse.

Of course not, the Jewish media would try to promote its controlled opposition as much as possible.

After French Prime Minister Manuel recently criticized Onfray for one of his tirades, he was called “a moron” in return by the philosopher. And earlier this year, Valls was deemed “a bore” by Houellebecq after venturing that he didn’t agree with the writer’s somber vision.

Gee, these “intellectuals” are daring.

Libération’s outburst was prompted by the latest in a long string of provocative statements Onfray has made in recent months, attacking the Socialist government’s policies and principles.

In an interview with Le Figaro,

Le Figaro is owned and controlled by Serge Dassault, born Serge Bloch, both his parents are of Jewish heritage.

..on September 8, the writer criticized what he called “the emotional response” to the picture of a dead refugee child that made headlines around the world and prompted French President François Hollande to soften on the issue of quotas for accepting asylum-seeker quotas.

Yes, sure, “the intellectuals” are coming to our European defense on the matter of immigration.

Onfray, who declined a request for comment for this article, went on to accuse France’s successive governments of “being contemptuous of the people” — what he calls, using the English term, “the ‘old school’ people”: French blue-collar workers, the unemployed, the poor, the pensioners. As for National Front leader Marine Le Pen, he said: “I don’t resent her as much as I resent those who made her possible.”

Onfray resents the possibility of European ethno-nationalism emerging.

Sacrebleu!

The dispute comes a few weeks after Jacques Sapir, an economist from the far left who has long campaigned against the euro, suggested the creation of an “anti-euro national liberation front” that might extend up to and including Le Pen’s party.

Sapir is a “far left” economist, son of psychoanalyst, Michel Sapir (Sapir = Jewish), he teaches in Russia and is perhaps a part of negotiating a quid pro quo between Russia and Le Pen = continue to ease-up on the Jews and Russia will give you more support.

Sapir added, in a Libération interview, that it was undeniable that the far-right National Front had “changed in the last years.” He is also one of France’s staunchest defenders of Vladimir Putin’s policies, and the author of a blog hailing what he sees as the Russian president’s many “successes” both economically and on the international stage.

Like I said.

Trojan horse of globalization

Onfray has called Sapir’s idea of an anti-euro alliance “interesting.” Some of the philosopher’s critics see a bitter irony in the fact that in 2002, he created a “People’s University” in Normandy, where he resides, to counter the rising influence of the National Front’s ideas. That’s the year when the party’s founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, father of current leader Marine, made it to the second round of the French presidential election against then-president Jacques Chirac after having defeated Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin.

I.e., Onfray is a useful tool for Jews…

The real split in French politics, as Onfray now sees it, is between the ruling, pro-European elites of both the conservative and socialist parties and the French people, who, he often says, have been betrayed “since 1983” — when then-president Mitterrand, a Socialist, converted to pro-market policies.

Oh yes, the problem is those damn socialists (don’t want to take away anything from plutocrats, especially not Jewish ones).

Ideological overlap between the National Front and France’s far left is not entirely new. The nationalist party has long sought and received support from French workers disillusioned by the mainstream left parties. Some former communist strongholds are now areas where the FN gets its largest support.

What a surprise! White Leftism works ..all of the people cannot be fooled all of the time.

‘This government from the left can’t seem to find an intellectual on its side.’

Jews like to use “intellectual” as a code word for their own rhetorical bullshit artists, who will now try to disassociate themselves from the liberalism that their people and flunkies created, that they are here and now calling “the government of the left”.

But most truthfully and most crucially, neither will The White Left find a Jew on its side.

Marine Le Pen herself stands a serious chance of winning the Nord-Pas de Calais district in the upcoming regional elections in December. The industry-dominated area was long ruled by the socialist or communist left. The anti-capitalist, anti-U.S. and populist platform of the National Front strikes a chord with voters who resent the changes brought by globalization.

...by Jewish and objectivist sellout globalization.

“Europe is seen by those intellectuals as just a Trojan horse of globalization,” said Laurent Joffrin, the editor of Libération who led the anti-Onfray charge. “What unites those intellectuals is opposition in general to modern times - to the governing left, to market-friendly Europe, to immigrants seen as armies of Islam. They never venture to tell us what should be done.”

...they found a useful idiot, an objectivist goy liberal to be a convenient foil for their false dichotomy.

Now the greater “intellectuals” are going to rescue us from this fool-hearty liberal.

‘The people vs. the euro’

Leftists like Onfray now find themselves agreeing with the other end of the political spectrum on a couple of key themes.

The first is the fate of France’s poor and working class – the “proletariat” Onfray says has been abandoned by the right and the left alike. In that vision, the governing left’s policies favor the globalized elite and the well-to-do, while catering to the needs of minorities (“the margins,” says Onfray) — such as immigrants, homosexuals and women.

...and women? French women are “minorities” that the “intellectuals” are going to defend against on behalf of who? ..and against who? ... seems both Jews and White objectivist sell-outs would like to blame the other.

The second theme is the visceral hostility towards Europe and the euro, seen as constraining economic and social policy and a fatal blow to the infamous “exception française,” a large and costly welfare state that’s supposed to shield the French from the turmoils of the global economy.

The drama is being played daily in the court of public opinion. Think of it as “the people vs. the euro.”

Is that how we should think about it?

“The latest eruption doesn’t come in a vacuum,” said Pascal Bruckner, an essayist and fiction writer, and one of the few French intellectuals who still presents himself as “pro-Europe, and rather Atlanticist.”

“There has long been a tradition of intellectuals defining themselves against the government, and if Valls thinks he can be a book critic, then the reaction is understandable,” Bruckner said. “What’s striking today is that it looks like this government from the left can’t seem to find an intellectual on its side”

Bruckner is another convenient objectivist, a proponent for returning to the enlightenment; with that, Jews can set-him-up as a foil.

Meanwhile, France continues to struggle with the economic crisis. Even as unemployment in the eurozone as a whole has declined steadily since early 2013, it keeps rising in France and may soon go above the monetary union’s average.

France’s intellectuals grapple with globalization, as does the rest of the society.

They again quote Joffrin, the other objectivist foil:

“This increases the disillusion of traditional left voters,” said Joffrin, “because the government so far can’t show results for its pro-euro, fiscally strict policies.”

The zeitgeist is summed up by the term “sinistrose,” the deep-rooted pessimism that has long passed as a trait of the French psyche but is taking a turn for the worse in times of economic and political uncertainty.

The new solution to the enlightenment’s radical skepticism, the Jews will tell us how to integrate “right and left” ... waiting ...here comes..

The anti-European feeling even permeates the governing left. When Marine Le Pen last week addressed Hollande in the European Parliament by calling him [Merkel’s] “vice-chancellor for the France region,” she was only slightly more aggressive than Hollande’s former economy minister, Arnaud Montebourg, who was fired from the government last year after saying that France’s austerity policies were “dictated by Germany’s right.”

“Europe here serves as proxy for globalization,” said a government adviser, who didn’t want to be identified for fear of “adding fuel to the fire.” “I call it the defeatist wing of French intellectual life: There’s no chance we’ll be able to make it, so let’s retract and retreat.”

No, no, the Jews and their shabbos goy are here to save us from our skepticism…and put our long held prejudices into debate..

And, yes, debate.

The new talk-show culture

Pilpul

The “Saving Philosopher Onfray” operation has no shortage of theatricality. It involves best-selling authors, whose pictures more often than not grace the covers of glossy news magazines, complaining about a “media conspiracy” to silence them.

Onfray’s best-selling books provide frequent cover stories for the news weeklies, and Finkielkraut seems like he has a permanent seat on French TV talk shows. Even government-supportive media, such as Libération or L’Obs, are eager takers for interviews with the supposedly silenced reactionaries.

Come the “neutral media” to apply the hand of restraint to these “rogue reactionaries”

Authors with more established “intellectual” credentials, such as Finkielkraut, are pushing back against what they consider an anti-racist or “anti-fascist” thought police. The philosopher recently defended the right of Nadine Morano, a French MP from Nicolas Sarkozy’s party Les Républicains, to say France was a “white race” country.

There is the payoff: all this build-up to allow Morano, and her Morano crypsis, to pawn-off Jews as White and manipulate White treatment of out-groups: “France is a Judeo-Christian country … a white race that welcomes strangers.”

And the Crescendo of the pilpul - playing the goyem off of one another:

Le Pen’s party, he writes in his most recent book, “La Seule Exactitude,” must be criticized for itself — because it is a “party of demagogues, ignoring both the complexity of political action and economic laws, promoting the cult of the strong man to the point of making Vladimir Putin not only an ally but a role model.”

Marine, your Russian Jewish alliance won’t spare you for being a shabbos goy -  another one, Onfray, on behalf of French Jews, seeks to assimilate your position and use that against you.

Back to the other useful foil…

Bruckner said it remains to be seen whether the controversy will be “just a prairie fire, chased next week by another piece of news” or a sign that “the divorce will become permanent between the ruling left and the intellectuals.”

Yes, sure, we want those “intellectual” Jews to swing rightward ... right where we are not.

In the meantime there is whispering that the big Mutualité meeting might be canceled after all — especially since neither Onfray nor Finkielkraut has agreed to appear as a witness for his own defense.

Didn’t you say that what “intellectuals” did best was organize debates?

Take heart, Onfray and friends, Islam didn’t come to debate either.

You might take the debate to the Middle-East, take Nadine Morano…she can defend her concept of Judeo-Christian Whiteness   ...there.

                             
Jean-François Copé (Romanian Jewish father, Algerian Jewish mother) and Morano

Morano has felt that “we need a tonic, and UMP Jean-Francois Copé best placed to embody the word, with strength and ability to address the issues without taboos” ...a representation of the “uninhibited right.”

Controversy ahead.

Summary: This interview was with Tomislav Sunic about the migration problem in Europe. Kumiko Oumae was hosting, standing in for Guessedworker, along with DanielS as co-host.

The issues which we covered were:

• The idea that part of the reason for the migration wave is psychological rather than strictly structural.
• Discussion on whether the words ‘migration’ or ‘crisis’ were really appropriate descriptions of what is happening.
• Discussion of weaknesses of Christianity in the face of an enemy.
• The relationship between countries in South Eastern Europe.
• Cases of religion being used as a cultural-historical identification rather than as a belief system.
• The influx of migrants and the terrorist threat posed by them to the European Union.
• The advantages which the defenders have over the invaders, given the disparity in average IQ.
• ‘Better is worse’, and how a deteriorating security situation can be a catalyst for total structural change in the case where all else fails.

I think it was a fantastic interview, I was really honoured to have Tomislav Sunic on our show, and I hope to have him back again as soon as possible. He’s really one of the best ethno-nationalist speakers alive.

What happens when WNs accept Russian news reports uncritically? They get misled, that’s what happens. Lasha Darkmoon has an article titled “America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria”. It’s based on an article which she took from Fort Russ, which was titled “Russian operation in Syria revealed the real sponsors of terrorism to the world”.

Let’s examine the core claims of Darkmoon’s Russian-derived article.

Russian claim #1:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

As soon as the Russian air force began to inflict serious blows, the Americans threw a tantrum fit. This is because ISIL militants had appealed to them for help.

Actual Reality: The Americans ‘threw a tantrum’ because the Russians were bombing everything without any concern for the balance of powers in the areas that they were hitting. This led to ISIL in fact gaining ground in some places such as Aleppo, and even involved instances where ISIL was able to induce the Russians to hit ISIL’s inter-sectarian opponents.

See here:

Guardian, ‘Isis seizes ground from Aleppo rebels under cover of Russian airstrikes’, 10 Oct 2015:

Islamic State militants have scored their most significant advances in the province of Aleppo, the closest they have come to Syria’s former commercial capital in two years, as it becomes increasingly clear that they are taking advantage of Russian airstrikes against the rest of the opposition to march into new territory.

As Russian planes continued to pound rebel forces in western Aleppo and other frontlines in the country, many of the opposition fighters who ousted Isis from the province at great cost last year found themselves pinned down and unable to halt the terror group’s largely unopposed advance towards the city at the end of last week.

“Russian planes are striking the Free Syrian Army and laying the groundwork for Daesh [Isis] control of strategic areas in Aleppo,” said a source from Tajammu al-Izzah, a moderate opposition group backed by western and Gulf states which has been hit by Russian airstrikes. “The truth is that Russia is backing Isis.”

[...]

On Friday, taking advantage of the Russian bombing of western Aleppo that has forced the rebels to reinforce their defensive lines there, Isis pivoted towards the south and within hours had taken control of a series of towns and villages to the north of the city of Aleppo, the closest it has come since it was defeated by the opposition.

“Russia entered with the excuse of fighting Daesh and has barely bombed them,” said a religious official serving with Jaysh al-Fateh, a coalition of rebels fighting the Assad government and whose fighters have been targeted by the Russian airstrikes.

“Russia did not come to fight Daesh. Why didn’t they and the American coalition prevent them from advancing in northern Aleppo when they send armoured vehicles through the open desert before everyone’s eyes?

“It is clear that both Russia and the regime are laying the groundwork for Daesh,” he added. “We have a joke here that they all have one operations room.”

[...]

The war is more complicated than Russians believe it is. Sometimes, what happens is that one Islamist group is incited to fight against another Islamist group because of competing territorial claims, or doctrinal disagreements, or because they are a front for a state-backed militia group which is using theological justifications for creating infighting within a particular sect. Because of this, radical Sunni Muslims can sometimes be fighting other radical Sunni Muslims.

If Russia simply gallivants into the middle of that situation and indiscriminately bombs everything that looks like an Islamist, they might in fact be upsetting the balance of terrorism—for lack of a better way of putting it—in a way that could unintentionally lead to ISIL gains.

Which appears to be precisely what the Russians have caused with their ham-fisted approach.

Russian claim #2:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

More than 50 aircraft were transported to Syria. More than 2000 people were transported in transport aircraft to Syria. And not one of the vaunted NATO radars in Turkey, Bulgaria or the other countries in the region were efficient enough to record all this activity!

Actual Reality: Even civilian observers were able to see the movement of Russian aircraft.

Here’s an example:

The Aviationist, ‘Latest imagery shows 28 Russian aircraft (12 Su-24s, 12 Su-25s and 4 Su-30s) on the ground at airbase in Syria’, 22 Sep 2015:

A satellite image has finally unveiled the whole Russian Air Force contingent made of 28 combat planes deployed to Syria: taken on Sept. 21, the photograph shows 4 Su-30SMs, 12 Su-25SMs and 12 Su-24s lined up, in the open air, along runway 17L at al-Assad International Airport, near Latakia, in western Syria.

[...]

And another example:

The Aviationist, ‘Six Russian Su-34 Fullback bomber have just arrived in Syria. And this is the route they have likely flown to get there.’, 29 Sep 2015:

Six Sukhoi Su-34 aircraft have eventually arrived at Latakia to join the Russian contingent already there.

Images allegedly shot around the al-Assad International Airport clearly show one Russian Fullback about to land at the airbase in western Syria where 28 Russian aircraft have arrived last week.

@ain92ru @pfc_joker @oryxspioenkop They arrived! pic.twitter.com/JCi4bIT4F5

— LuftwaffeAS (@LuftwaffeAS) 28 Settembre 2015

One of the photos taken from the ground shows the six aircraft trailing what seems to be an airliner over Idlib: the larger plane is probably a Russian Air Force Tu-154.

Said to be an airliner/transporter accompanied with 6 fighters crossing over Hama country side pic.twitter.com/cPbjVZssyi

— LuftwaffeAS (@LuftwaffeAS) 28 Settembre 2015

Interestingly, a Russian Air Force Tu-154 using callsign RFF7085 could be tracked online on Flightradar24 during its flight to Latakia on Sept. 28, likely exposing the route followed by the six Su-34s trailing their accompanying Tu-154.

As the below image shows, the aircraft flew in international airspace over the Caspian Sea, to Iran and entered Syrian airspace after flying over northern Iraq: did the Su-34s have all the required diplomatic clearances to fly north of Baghdad or did they simply “sneak” into Syria by hiding under the cover of the transport plane?

Hard to say.

Last week, US officials said that the first 28 Russian combat planes hid under the radar signature on the larger transport aircraft, in an attempt to avoid detection but there are chances that the flights had all the required clearances from the Iraqi Air Traffic Control agencies and were conducted as a standard long-range ferry flight: one tanker/airlifter, using radio and transponder, supporting multiple fast jets.

H/T to @LuftwaffeAS and @obretix. Image credit: Flightradar24.com.

If even random civilians on the internet can see it, that’s probably a sign that their operations are not invisible, and are in fact being meticulously recorded—by civilians. At that point, whether NATO is or is not watching, becomes frankly irrelevant.

Russian claim #3:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

US and ISIL (or ISIS) have close ties [...]

This statement seems to be based on a photograph that purports to show Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi with John McCain.

Actual Reality: The man sitting with John McCain is not Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.

I’m sure you can all agree that the Russians were not even trying with that one. I’ll be charitable and assume that’s their idea of a joke. The man with John McCain obviously looks nothing like Al-Baghdadi. He is a member of the Northern Storm Brigade, a group which is fighting against ISIL.

Russian claim #4:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

There is no perfidy here. We alerted everyone in advance what we were about to do. This included Netanyahu.

Actual Reality: That is true, the Russians did inform Israel in advance. They decided to be courteous to Israel.  It’s a really stupid thing to do, given that Netanyahu has no particular reason to keep any of the information secret from ISIL, as it is in Israel’s geostrategic interest to let ISIL carry on wreaking havoc on Syria.

Recall this fact:

The Algemeiner, ‘Israeli Officials: We’d Prefer Al-Qaeda-Run Syria to an Assad Victory’, 04 Jun 2013:

[...]

According to Israel Hayom, senior Israeli officials were quoted as saying that “al-Qaeda control over Syria would be preferable to a victory by Assad over the rebels.”

Officials believe that an Assad victory would strengthen Iran, as a weakened Syrian regime would become more reliant on the Islamic Republic. The Iran-Hezbollah-Syria axis would thus become an even greater threat to Israel, the officials said.

“Assad is now Iran,” the officials said, according to Israel Hayom. “Any of these groups would be less problematic for Israel than an Assad regime that is a puppet of Iran,” the officials were quoted as saying.

It’s anyone’s guess as to whether Israel’s calculus on that issue has changed since 2013. By “any of these groups”, that can mean Al-Qaeda which they mentioned, but it could also mean they’d be okay with letting ISIL run around doing things too, because “any” means “any”, right? Who can know for sure?

Yet Russia does this, regardless:

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, ‘Russia informed Israel ahead of airstrikes in Syria on ISIS’, 30 Sep 2015:

[...]

Russian officials reportedly contacted their Israeli defense establishment counterparts about an hour before the attack, Israel’s Channel 2 reported. Russian government officials also contacted Yossi Cohen, the national security adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office, Haaretz reported, citing unnamed senior Israeli officials.

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Putin in Moscow to discuss the security threats to Israel from Syria. During the meeting, the two leaders agreed to coordinate between the Israeli and Russian militaries in order to avoid conflicts over Syria. Putin also told Netanyahu that Syria is not in a position to open a second front against Israel.

[...]

So in summary, the only one of those Russian claims which is true, happens to be the most disastrously idiotic one in practice. Apparently the Russians have never heard the phrase ‘loose lips sink ships’, since the loud-mouthed Russians seem to have been perfectly happy to give Israel a whole 60 minutes of warning ahead of each stage of their activities so far.

NATO on the other hand does not make a habit of giving Israel that kind of information, due to various reasons related to Israel’s bad behaviour in the past, which I’m sure that all Majorityrights readers are aware of.

Gaels were expropriated from the land between 1800 and 1830.

What is going on?

Much has been said in recent weeks about a man named Peter Sutherland. Sutherland is the United Nations Special Representative on migration, and he is an international businessman and former Attorney General of Ireland who has served in a variety of business and political roles. He was appointed to the European Commission in 1985 and had responsibility for competition policy. He was the Chairman of AIB (Allied Irish Banks) from 1989 until 1993. He was non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International until June 2015. In 2010, he was appointed co-chair of an Experts Group, to report on the priority actions to be taken to stave off protectionism and to boost global trade.

Sutherland is also keenly pro-European, which doesn’t sound like a bad thing until you realise what he means by that. A person would think that it’s pretty simple, after all, when talking about the ‘European Union’, the word ‘European’ is literally in the name. But no, Sutherland is pro-European, or ‘a Europhile’, in the sense that he supports the institutions of the European Union, but he does not support the ethnic genetic interests of those who live under those institutions.

Sutherland is a person who believes that the Arab Spring should have been considered as a chance to begin ‘weaving together’ Europe with North Africa and the Middle East, population-wise. What he of course means in practice is not—not ever—a colonisation of North Africa and the Middle East by Europeans, but rather, an invitation for literally unlimited migration from North Africa and the Middle East into the European Union to displace Europeans.

Objectively speaking, that is the expropriation of European peoples from their own lands, it is a displacement. Sutherland however entreats Europeans to think of it from a humanitarian and empathetic point of view. For example, it was Peter Sutherland who described the makeshift refugee camps in Calais, as ‘an indictment on society’, and asked the British and French governments to do more to assist the Middle Eastern and North African migrants.

Previously, profiteering

For the Sutherland family name, there is a long history of humanitarian and empathetic points of view being expressed by its members, when behind the hand-wringing and the appeals to a universal morality, behind the cloak of respectability and quasi-aristocratic pretensions, lurks the dagger of the most vicious blood-treason and abject profiteering which can only be expected from business-people of their calibre—a tendency which is by no means diminished but rather is reinforced by their Christian identity.

It was in January 1853, that the Stafford House Assembly of Ladies issued its call to their counterparts in North America, to ask them to consider the plight of black people in the Southern states of the United States, who had been enslaved for so long and were, in their view, in need of sympathy. They were consciousness-raising, making a call to action, and so on. That was a declaration that took place when Stafford House was under the presidency of the Duchess of Sutherland, who—much as it was in fashion then as it is in fashion now—was giving an object lesson on how easy it always is for liberals to show concern for people thousands of miles away, while ignoring the suffering of their own people close by—particularly when that suffering is caused by their own ‘humanitarian’ hand.

The whole history of the primitive accumulation that has led to the appearance of the wealth and prestige of the name Sutherland, and of other names of that type from Scotland and Ireland, is really in fact a history of the expropriation of the Gael people from their own lands, and their destruction at the hands of blood-traitors.

A quick sketch of history will be needed in order for things to become clear. In the 1100s, when the Danelaw was encroaching onto Scotland, the resistance came from the ‘Great Man of Sutherland’, a progenitor whose clan had defended him from all enemies, foreign and domestic, Scottish or Danish. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which installed the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau as King, due to the economic changes and the shift in political attitudes at the time, the internecine fighting among Gaels become less frequent, and at the same time, the propensity for Anglo-Dutch wars to erupt was reduced to zero. These things may not be the only factors, but they may comprise part of the reasons for why London was able to take the time to better integrate the Gael clans into the British military establishment, to incentivise stability by inducing these ostensibly different forms of social organisation to mutually support each other in Scotland.

The clan system of the Gaels was an array of social relations based around a progenitor and his or her progeny, which is to say, it is a relationship delimited by ties of blood and proximity. The district in which a clan operated was the land from which it gained its livelihood, much like how it was in what Marxists call ‘the Asiatic mode of production’, because it existed in a similar form in China, Japan, Korea, and various parts of South East Asia, in the pre-feudal era. It’s also comparable to the systems in some parts of the Americas before the appearance of Columbus.

It was basically a pre-feudal system of relations.

At the head of the clan was the progenitor’s family, which had a leader. The whole of the clan was like a system of blood-related family circles under them, the system could not be said to be a system of private property, because all the land was held as common land, under the military command of the progenitor. The progenitor could increase or decrease the allotment of land to subordinates as necessary, perhaps on a whim, or perhaps to fit a particular need. Under the family of the progenitor, were soldiers that administered regions, and under them were subalterns who managed towns and hamlets, and under all of them were the peasants who co-operated with the system in exchange for the benefits of a common defence perimeter and which was cemented by ties of blood.

Without an explicit legal system that could describe or allocate private property, it would be impossible to arbitrate land ownership in any way at that time. However, tradition and rank would mean that someone would have the largest influence, and the family of the progenitor, the leader in particular, would be the person who would ultimately have the final say on what would or would not be happening. This may seem benign at first, but when brought into interaction with a system that does have a concept of private property and the concept of a salary or a wage, it can potentially produce a deadly transformation which can lead to the clan’s destruction.

The destruction

As all services were gradually transformed into contract-based exchanges, the leader of the family of the progenitor began to increasingly take on the role of a landlord toward the soldiers, the soldiers in turn acting like farmers toward the peasants, and the peasants themselves becoming transformed into something like sharecroppers on the land that they used to call their own.

It would be in the early 1800s that the stab in the back was to come, and it came from one of the families of the progenitors in the form of the arbitrary and violent transformation of the clan’s common property into the private property of the leader, who could then dispose of it and its contents in any way that he or she desired, backed by government-sponsored force, which then resulted in armed conflict almost like a civil war.

Karl Marx—yes, seriously—explains with great accuracy what happened after that:

Karl Marx, Das Kapital Volume One, ‘Chapter Twenty-Seven: Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land’, 1867:

[...]

The advance made by the 18th century shows itself in this, that the law itself becomes now the instrument of the theft of the people’s land, although the large farmers make use of their little independent methods as well. [15] The parliamentary form of the robbery is that of Acts for enclosures of Commons, in other words, decrees by which the landlords grant themselves the people’s land as private property, decrees of expropriation of the people. Sir F. M. Eden refutes his own crafty special pleading, in which he tries to represent communal property as the private property of the great landlords who have taken the place of the feudal lords, when he, himself, demands a “general Act of Parliament for the enclosure of Commons” (admitting thereby that a parliamentary coup d’état is necessary for its transformation into private property), and moreover calls on the legislature for the indemnification for the expropriated poor. [16]

[...]

The stoical peace of mind with which the political economist regards the most shameless violation of the “sacred rights of property” and the grossest acts of violence to persons, as soon as they are necessary to lay the foundations of the capitalistic mode of production, is shown by Sir F. M. Eden, philanthropist and Tory to boot. The whole series of thefts, outrages, and popular misery, that accompanied the forcible expropriation of the people, from the last third of the 15th to the end of the 18th century, lead him merely to the comfortable conclusion: “The due proportion between arable land and pasture had to be established. During the whole of the 14th and the greater part of the 15th century, there was one acre of pasture to 2, 3, and even 4 of arable land. About the middle of the 16th century the proportion was changed of 2 acres of pasture to 2, later on, of 2 acres of pasture to one of arable, until at last the just proportion of 3 acres of pasture to one of arable land was attained.”

In the 19th century, the very memory of the connexion between the agricultural labourer and the communal property had, of course, vanished. To say nothing of more recent times, have the agricultural population received a farthing of compensation for the 3,511,770 acres of common land which between 1801 and 1831 were stolen from them and by parliamentary devices presented to the landlords by the landlords?

[...]

The last process of wholesale expropriation of the agricultural population from the soil is, finally, the so-called clearing of estates, i.e., the sweeping men off them. All the English methods hitherto considered culminated in “clearing.” As we saw in the picture of modern conditions given in a former chapter, where there are no more independent peasants to get rid of, the “clearing” of cottages begins; so that the agricultural labourers do not find on the soil cultivated by them even the spot necessary for their own housing. But what “clearing of estates” really and properly signifies, we learn only in the promised land of modern romance, the Highlands of Scotland. There the process is distinguished by its systematic character, by the magnitude of the scale on which it is carried out at one blow (in Ireland landlords have gone to the length of sweeping away several villages at once; in Scotland areas as large as German principalities are dealt with), finally by the peculiar form of property, under which the embezzled lands were held.

The Highland Celts were organised in clans, each of which was the owner of the land on which it was settled. The representative of the clan, its chief or “great man,” was only the titular owner of this property, just as the Queen of England is the titular owner of all the national soil. When the English government succeeded in suppressing the internecine wars of these “great men,” and their constant incursions into the Lowland plains, the chiefs of the clans by no means gave up their time-honored trade as robbers; they only changed its form. On their own authority they transformed their nominal right into a right of private property, and as this brought them into collision with their clansmen, resolved to drive them out by open force. “A king of England might as well claim to drive his subjects into the sea,” says Professor Newman. [25] This revolution, which began in Scotland after the last rising of the followers of the Pretender, can be followed through its first phases in the writings of Sir James Steuart [26] and James Anderson. [27] In the 18th century the hunted-out Gaels were forbidden to emigrate from the country, with a view to driving them by force to Glasgow and other manufacturing towns. [28]

As an example of the method [29] obtaining in the 19th century, the “clearing” made by the Duchess of Sutherland will suffice here. This person, well instructed in economy, resolved, on entering upon her government, to effect a radical cure, and to turn the whole country, whose population had already been, by earlier processes of the like kind, reduced to 15,000, into a sheep-walk. From 1814 to 1820 these 15,000 inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically hunted and rooted out. All their villages were destroyed and burnt, all their fields turned into pasturage. British soldiers enforced this eviction, and came to blows with the inhabitants. One old woman was burnt to death in the flames of the hut, which she refused to leave. Thus this fine lady appropriated 794,000 acres of land that had from time immemorial belonged to the clan. She assigned to the expelled inhabitants about 6,000 acres on the sea-shore — 2 acres per family. The 6,000 acres had until this time lain waste, and brought in no income to their owners. The Duchess, in the nobility of her heart, actually went so far as to let these at an average rent of 2s. 6d. per acre to the clansmen, who for centuries had shed their blood for her family.

The whole of the stolen clanland she divided into 29 great sheep farms, each inhabited by a single family, for the most part imported English farm-servants. In the year 1835 the 15,000 Gaels were already replaced by 131,000 sheep. The remnant of the aborigines flung on the sea-shore tried to live by catching fish. They became amphibious and lived, as an English author says, half on land and half on water, and withal only half on both. [30]

But the brave Gaels must expiate yet more bitterly their idolatry, romantic and of the mountains, for the “great men” of the clan. The smell of their fish rose to the noses of the great men. They scented some profit in it, and let the sea-shore to the great fishmongers of London. For the second time the Gaels were hunted out. [31]

There is nothing that I can add to that.

Nothing is new about what is happening now, compared to what was happening back then. Not only is the same kind of economic structure being used to carry out the destruction as was being used in the 1800s, but furthermore the very name of Sutherland has reappeared, it has reappeared as though to flaunt itself in the face of the people of the British Isles.

A new decision

Last time the great blood-traitors were able to take you down the path that they wanted—a whole ethnic group was effectively destroyed and scattered across the earth.

Now they come again, under the same names to re-invite you down the same path.

My question to all European peoples is this: Will you let them take you again?

Let’s build a good future for all regions!

Overview

The main points covered in this article are:

• Broad agreement on the TPP has been reached.
• The TPP actually does not incentivise mass migration, it is part of a process which is empowering people to live and work in their own lands.
• The TPP is part of a trend of ongoing economic development in South East Asia, Central America and South America, which is concomitant with raising wages in those areas.
• Regional imbalance is one of the core components of global economic crisis, which can be remedied by enabling people to actually buy the products they produce.
• The advent of a multipolar world means that global ideological hegemony can no longer be easily held by one regional group.
• Unlike the disastrous case of NAFTA, it is in fact strategically sound for all ethno-regionalists to endorse the TPP.

It is written with the intent of conveying the necessary information in the shortest amount of time. Read more beneath the fold.

READ MORE...