Majorityrights News > Category: European Nationalism

Sam Francis was creating ‘young fogies’ - Alex Linder.

It’s going to require some nuance, but it is important to explain why James Lawrence is a walking piece of dog shit masquerading as a human being, a manifestation shown in his article at (((Alternative Right))):

Alternative Right, “THE COSMOPOLITAN CLASS”, 24 Sept 2017.

In brief, James Lawrence has elevated Sam Francis young fogeyism = an aspiration to conceive of oneself as precociously wry in protection of the “traditional” already Jew infested culture against “progressivism.” This is anti modernism without being sufficiently post modern (to incorporate the best while leaving behind the worst of both modern and inherited ways), as it stops with a neo-traditionalism, read (((paleoconservatism))).

Now, Francis, and by proxy Lawrence, have some things right.

Namely, that there is a significant portion of influential White people circulating among our elite functions who do not have our ethnonational interests at heart. More, that there is a managerial elite who want to share in this self interested good fortune, who will thus also betray ethno nationals in order to gain favor of this elite, internationalist power.

It is also true that both these kinds of White people can gain international backing by importing foreigners against Whites (or exporting elitist interests, e.g., compradors, against ethnonationals) and they can and do also virtue signal by sacrificing Whites and quelling any backlash against foreign impositions on ethnonationalism.

But I more accurately and descriptively call these people right wingers, and their underpinning objectivism: which is directed by Jewry - hence, Lawrence’s commitment to end his article in (((his masters))) bidding by espousing the “true right” on behalf of (((paleoconservatism))) against “the left”...“the Cosmopolitans” and the occasional bad Jew - yes, they have bad ones too, he knows.

Here Lawrence takes a turn into disingenuous speculation, by saying these Whites who betray eithnonationalism are not “traitors” - well, objectivists are not perfectly described as “traitors”, true - they are loyal to their own subjective interests through a disingenuous pretense of objectivism or naively subject to the subjective/relative interests of others through the pretense of objectivism.

Although there are distinct patterns of the treacherous Whites among elite positions, there is not necessarily a well organized elite group to which they subscribe as Lawrence would provide for the diversion of conspiracy theorists - it is more facile than that.

Indeed, the only real reason to circumscribe it so perfectly with the designation of a “Cosmopoitain” elite which is strictly loyal to its in group, is to function as a tool for Jews to deflect attention away from what is indeed their more organized half of the elite internationalist equation. So that they can point to their (((paleocons))), who can say, “see? we are the good ones”, we have paleocons who are on your side, not like those bad Jews, we’re here with you to protect your (((Christian traditions))) against those “Cosmopolitan elites” and the occasional bad Jew, like Soros and neo cons like William Kristol.

That is to say, like the site Alternative Right, James Lawrence is disguising, perhaps even to himself, the fact that he is kissing Jewish ass in order to keep his means to power afloat.

White elites who betray our interests are indeed one giant pole of our problem, but their loyalty functions a bit more arbitrarily on the happenstance of subjective fortune and selling out; along with the mutual admiration and facile croneyism of their “objective” attainment, which is why, in their unaccountabilty, they are so easily bribed and outmaneuvered by the Jewish group, which is organized as a distinct group in its relative interests (is it good for Jews?) and which will send forth posers as representatives of (((paleoconservatism))) against the “Cosmopolitan” elite.

That is to say, objectivism functions in a much more slippery way against ethnonational interests and Jewry knows how to play it - e.g., through reactionary narratives like those of Sam Francis and James Lawrence. It is a nebulous, quasi group created de facto by the ever present temptation of facile betrayal in self interest, and that is why it requires the ever present default vigilance of accountability through left nationalism and its White variant, the White class, White Left nationalism.

The key difference is that we are Left Ethnonationalists, therefore Not imperialists, not supremacists, with no aim of genocide or its denial; thus, if our organizational meetings were infiltrated the only possible complaint would be that we wanted separatism and sovereignty; we do not want “them” to be part of our government and governing; do not want them imposed upon us; and if they refuse our wish for separatism and sovereignty, then they are revealed as the imperialists, supremacists, the exploitative, the slave masters.

Independent, 20 Sept 2017:

“Anti-fascist activist goes undercover with ‘alt right’ to expose movement’s rapid European expansion.”

Hope Not Hate report reveals how the group is breathing new life into once dormant far-right and racist groups around the world. A toxic mix of antisemitism, Islamophobia and sexism is revealed at the heart of the “alt-right” movement, following an investigation by an openly-gay anti-fascist activist that sheds new light on the far-right’s rising influence over political parties on both sides of the Atlantic.

Members of the group were caught discussing “gassing Jews” and killing their left-wing opponents after Hope Not Hate conducted a major study of white supremacists in the US and Europe.

The exposé reveals how the “alt-right” is breathing new life into once dormant far-right and racist groups around the world, uniting them under one international movement.

It uncovers the infiltration of the “alt-right” in the UK, with Sheffield-born blogger Paul Joseph Watson among those using their online following to reach audiences the traditional far-right has until now been unable to muster.

As a general principle The Independent avoids using the term “alt-right”, on the basis it is a euphemism employed to disguise racist aims.

The report says a second, “moderate” wing – dubbed the “alt-light” – has become increasingly influential on right-wing politics in Britain, pushing Ukip and others into ever-more hard-line territory.

Far right banned from using their favorite meme.

Authors of the study The International Alternative Right: From Charlottesville to the White House also claim to have found links between the hard-right network and the Trump administration.

Speaking of his experiences infiltrating the network of white supremacists, Patrik Hermansson said: “For almost a year I’ve been at the heart of a world of extreme racism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, esoteric Nazi rituals and wild conspiracy theories.

“What I found was a movement that sometimes glorifies Nazi Germany, openly supports genocidal ideas and is unrelentingly racist, sexist and homophobic.”

Mr Hermansson said he first gained access to the movement after joining the far-right “think tank” London Forum, having claimed to have come to the UK as a disillusioned Swede curious about the “alt-right” and inspired by Brexit.

He was then introduced to other groups, including the Extremists Club and the Traditional Britain Group, which aims to “preserve the ancient traditions, peoples and beliefs” of the UK.

He said: “In this world, Holocaust denial and conspiracy theories are commonplace, so much so that a whole group exists to cater specifically for them.

“I spent endless mind-numbing hours at meetings of the [conspiracy theorist group] Keep Talking, listening to speakers deny climate change, debate whether 9/11 was a false flag attack or if an ill-defined ‘they’ sold birth certificates on the stock market. Trestle tables at the edge of the hall were adorned with Holocaust denial books.”

The label “alt-right” was first adopted by white supremacist Richard Spencer, but was brought to mainstream attention by individuals with a larger social media presence such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Mike Cernovich.

READ MORE...

With this spring’s resurgence of support for Angela Merkel and the Union parties, and the resignation of Frauke Petry from the AfD leadership on 20th April, polling had shown an alarming collapse in support for the fledgeling party.  But now, with the election imminent on 24th September, there is evidence that a surprisingly strong performance is likely.

In a recent survey by polling institute Emnid in Bild am Sonntag newspaper on Sunday, the AfD ranked in at 11 per cent, behind Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union at 36 per cent and the SPD at 22 per cent. While predictions, published in Berlin’s Tagesspiegel newspaper, suggest the party could have 89 out of 703 members in the Bundestag.

One might consider this a triumph of low expectations.  But this is Germany, the most cowed nation on earth, where any expression of German pride is scandalous:

AfD has experienced a surge in popularity fuelled by concerns over the escalating migrant crisis, terror attacks and mass sexual assaults in Germany.

And the rise has been unaffected by recent scandals, including AfD MP Alexander Gauland who recently said Germany should not shy away from its military achievements. The Express article continues:

The 76-year-old said: “If the French are rightly proud of their emperor and the Britons of Nelson and Churchill, we have the right to be proud of the achievements the German soldiers in world wars.

“People no longer need to reproach us with these 12 years. They don’t relate to our identity nowadays.”

Gauland is right.  The freeing of Germans from the shadow of the National Socialist past ... the acknowledgement of Germans themselves that they, like any other people, have a life to live, and that life is ethnic and unique, as well as noble and precious ... is a keystone in the wider struggle of all European-descended peoples for a sovereign and free life.  A reasonable result for the AfD on Sunday will show not only that the party is still viable and can move forward, but that German self-respect and German destining are also not impossible dreams, but historical necessities and, perhaps, coming facts.

      * Please feel free to forward or pass on to other nationalists *

The 2017 Annual John Tyndall Memorial Meeting

Friday 6th October, 2017

Preston - Lancashire. 1pm – 6pm

Keith Axon: Meeting Chairman: - Longstanding friend of JT, former NF and BNP organiser

Speakers include (in alphabetical order):

Benny Bullman: - lead singer of the Blood & honour band Whitelaw, and longstanding British Movement activist

Mark Collett: - former Young BNP organizer, twice acquitted on ‘race-hate’ charges and author of Decline of Western Man

Richard Edmonds: - Longstanding friend of JT, National Front directorate member activist - former BNP national organiser

Stephen Frost: - National secretary of the British Movement and author of the Colin Jordan biography ‘TWAS A GOOD FIGHT’!

Julie Lake: - former BNP organiser, now National Front & South West Forum organiser

Dr. James Lewthwaite: - former Bradford City Councillor, archaeology lecturer, organiser for the British Democrats and Orangeman

Eddy Morrison: - Longstanding White nationalist, former NF, BNP and WNP organiser – now editor of the online newsletter White Voice

Peter Rushton: - Assistant editor of Heritage and Destiny magazine & Russia Today and Press TV commentator

Jez Turner: – former soldier, Arabic & Pashtun translator, & now chairman of The London Forum

READ MORE...

Related Story: European & Asian Regional Alliance

Gatestone Inst., “Germany Heading for Four More Years of Pro-EU, Open-Door Migration Policies”, 8 Sept 2017:

  The policy positions of Merkel and Schulz on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.

  Merkel and Schulz both agree that there should be no upper limit on the number of migrants entering Germany.

  Merkel’s grand coalition backed a law that would penalize social media giants, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, with fines of €50 million ($60 million) if they fail to remove offending content from their platforms within 24 hours. Observers say the law is aimed at silencing critics of Merkel’s open-door migration policy.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), is on track win a fourth term in office after polls confirmed she won the first and only televised debate with her main election opponent, Martin Schulz, leader of the Social Democratic Union Party (SDP).

A survey for the public broadcaster ARD showed that 55% of viewers thought Merkel was the “more convincing” candidate during the debate, which took place on September 3; only 35% said Schulz came out ahead.

Many observers agreed that Schulz failed to leverage the debate to revive his flagging campaign, while others noted that Schulz’s positions on many issues are virtually indistinguishable from those held by Merkel.

Rainald Becker, an ARD commentator, described the debate as, “More a duet than a duel.”

“Merkel came out as sure, Schulz was hardly able to land a punch,” wrote Heribert Prantl, a commentator at Süddeutsche Zeitung. “The candidate is an honorable man. But being honorable alone will not make him chancellor.”

Christian Lindner, leader of the classical liberal Free Democrats, compared the debate to “scenes from a long marriage, where there is the occasional quarrel, but both sides know that they have to stick together in the future, too.”

Television presenter Günther Jauch, writing in Bild, said he had hoped to “at least understand what differentiates Merkel and Schulz in political terms. Instead, it was just a conversation between two political professionals who you suspect could both work pretty seamlessly in the same government.”

Radio and television host Thomas Gottschalk said that the two candidates agreed with each other too often: “They were both always nodding their heads when the other was speaking.”

Germany’s general election is scheduled for September 24. If voters went to the polls now, Merkel’s CDU, together with its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), would win 39%, according to a September 4 Politbarometer survey conducted for the public broadcaster ZDF.

Coming in second, Schulz’s SDP would win 22%; the classical liberal Free Democrats (FDP) 10%; the far-left Linke 9%; the Greens 8% and the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) 8%.

The poll also found that 57% of respondents said they preferred that Merkel serve another term; only 28% favored Schulz to become the next chancellor. Nevertheless, half of Germany’s 60 million voters are said to be undecided, and some pollsters believe that the country’s huge non-voting population may determine the outcome.

As Merkel’s CDU/CSU is unlikely to emerge from the election with an absolute majority, the 2017 vote effectively revolves around the issue of coalition-building. If current polling holds, Merkel, who has vowed to serve a full four years if re-elected, will have two main options.

Merkel could form another so-called grand coalition, an alliance of Germany’s two biggest parties, namely the CDU/CSU and the SPD.

Merkel currently governs with a grand coalition and has done so during two of her three terms in office.

Both the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats have said they hope to end the grand coalition and lead the government with smaller partners after the September election. After the debate, however, many observers believe a grand coalition between Merkel and Schulz is more probable than not.

Merkel’s second option would be to form a three-way coalition with the Greens and the FDP, which served as junior coalition partner to the CDU/CSU for almost half of Germany’s post-war history. Merkel has already ruled out forming a coalition with either the Linke or the AfD.

In any event, the policy positions of Merkel and Schulz on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (right) and her main election opponent, Martin Schulz (left), whose policy positions on key issues are virtually identical. (Image source: European Parliament/Flickr)

Merkel and Schulz are ardent Europhiles and both are committed to more European federalism. During an August 12 campaign speech in Dortmund, for example, Merkel described the European Union as the “greatest peace project” in history and vowed that she would never turn her back on this “wonderful project.”

Previously, Merkel said:

  “We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy. And we need most of all a political union — that means we need to gradually give competencies to Europe and give Europe control.”

Merkel has also endorsed the idea of a European Monetary Fund to deal with sovereign defaults by eurozone countries:

  “It could make us even more stable and allow us to show the world that we have all the mechanisms in our own portfolio of the euro zone to be able to react well to unexpected situations.”

Schulz has argued that the EU must be preserved at any cost:

  “We are at a historical juncture: A growing number of people are declaring what has been achieved over the past decades in Europe to be wrong. They want to return to the nation-state. Sometimes there is even a blood and soil rhetoric that for me is starkly reminiscent of the interwar years of the past century, whose demons we are still all too familiar with. We brought these demons under control through European structures, but if we destroy those structures, the demons will return. We cannot allow this to happen.”

Schulz has opposed the idea of holding national referendums on leaving the EU:

  “Referendums have always posed a threat when it comes to EU policy, because EU policy is complicated. They are an opportunity for those from all political camps who like to oversimplify things.”

Schulz has also voiced optimism that the British decision to leave the European Union would facilitate the creation of a European Army:

  “In the fields of security and defense policy, although the EU loses a key member state, paradoxically such a separation could give the necessary impulse for a closer integration of the remaining member states.”

During the September 3 debate, Schulz declared that he would end Turkey’s accession talks to join the European Union because of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s authoritarianism. Merkel initially said she opposed such a move but then suddenly changed her mind. Unexpectedly, Merkel said: “The fact is clear that Turkey should not become an EU member.”

On the issue of migration, Schulz and Merkel differ on procedure, not principle. During the debate, for example, Schulz accused Merkel of failing to involve the European Union in her 2015 decision to open German borders to more than a million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Merkel said that although some mistakes had been made, she would take the same decision again.

In fact, Merkel and Schulz both agree that there should be no upper limit on the number of migrants entering Germany: “On the issue of an upper limit, my position is clear,” Merkel told ARD television. “I won’t accept one.”

Schulz has said:

  “A numerical cap is not a response to the refugee issue, even if it is agreed upon in a European context. What do we do with the first refugee who comes to the European frontier and has no quota available? Do we send him back to perhaps a sure death? As long as this question is not resolved, such a discussion makes no sense.”

Schulz believes the European Union should have a greater role in migration policymaking:

  “What we need is a European right of immigration and asylum. The refugee crisis shows us clearly that we cannot give a national response to a global phenomenon such as the refugee movements. This is only possible in a European context.”

Merkel has criticized Hungary for failing to show “solidarity” in aiding refugees. She has also vowed to punish Poland for its refusal to take in more migrants from the Muslim world:

  “As much as I wish for good relations with Poland — they are our neighbor and I will always strive for this given the importance of our ties — we can’t simply keep our mouth shut in order to keep the peace. This goes to the very foundations of our cooperation within the European Union.”

Schulz vowed that, if elected chancellor, he would push for the EU to cut subsidies to countries that do not take in refugees: “With me as chancellor, we won’t accept that solidarity as a principle is questioned.”

Meanwhile, Merkel’s grand coalition backed a law that would penalize social media giants, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, with fines of €50 million ($60 million) if they fail to remove offending content from their platforms within 24 hours. Observers say the law is aimed at silencing critics of Merkel’s open-door migration policy.

Like Merkel, Schulz has reserved his worst vitriol for the anti-immigration AfD, whose leaders he has described as “rat catchers” (Rattenfänger) who are “trying to profit from the plight of refugees.” He has also called them “shameful and repulsive.”

In an August 22 interview with Bild, Merkel answered critics of her desire to continue in power by saying that the longer she rules, the better she gets: “I’ve decided to run for another four years and believe that the mix of experience and curiosity and joy that I have could make the next four years good ones.”

Note that according to EU rules, when migrants are granted permission to stay in Germany they are free to move anywhere within the EU after three years.

Related Articles:

Germany Introduces Forced Integration

EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.

WSJ,“Hungary and Slovakia Must Admit Refugees as Part of European Union Relocation Program, Court Rules”, 6 Sept 2017:

Ruling comes amid rising tensions between the EU’s Western and Eastern members over whether the bloc has the authority to resettle refugees.

The EUs top court on Wednesday ruled that Hungary and Slovakia must admit migrants as part of a refugee relocation program, a significant victory for Brussels that resurfaces deep disagreements over immigration policy within the bloc.

The ruling comes amid rising tensions between the EU’s Western and Eastern members over whether the bloc has the authority to resettle refugees in countries whose politicians have called for refugee bans, an issue which has roiled politics across the region since a major influx of people two summers ago.

In Hungary, a senior official said the government wouldn’t accept the ruling. The prime minister and his cabinet were in a meeting immediately after the news broke to discuss legal and political options to oppose it.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban has consistently rejected the idea of refugee quotas and instead asked the EU to contribute to a border fence his government erected to prevent migrants from entering the country. European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker in an interview with the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung on Wednesday rejected that request and said Hungary must show solidarity with other nations in dealing with the refugee burden.

“ECJ confirms relocation scheme valid. Time to work in unity and implement solidarity in full,” tweeted EU migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos.

Officials in Slovakia said they would soon issue a more detailed response but initially appeared to accept the ruling. “Of course we respect the decision made by the court,” said Slovak Foreign Ministry spokesman Peter Susko.

In its judgment, the European Court of Justice rejected legal arguments brought by the two countries and said that the EU was right to set up an emergency relocation program in 2015, at the height of the migration crisis that swept the continent. The program was aimed at redistributing more evenly across the bloc up to 120,000 asylum seekers who had arrived in Greece and Italy. Only 28,000 people were moved under that program, which was supposed to be completed this autumn.

In 2015 the program was adopted by a majority vote with Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania opposing. Poland at the time agreed to the program, but a new government in Warsaw subsequently changed course and refused to take in any refugees. Poland also backed Slovakia and Hungary in the proceedings before court.

The case is a likely to fuel ongoing spats that Poland and Hungary are engaged in with the European Commission, the bloc’s executive branch. The fights center on what Brussels considers democracy-eroding measures being put in place in the two countries. The commission has separately started legal proceedings against Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic for refusing to accept any asylum seekers under the relocation plan. If they don’t change course by the time a ruling is made, the countries could face financial penalties.

The Wednesday ruling follows a legal opinion by the court’s top lawyer, who said in late July that the two countries’ case should be dismissed.

        ...if there was ever a doubt that the European Union is evil, that removes it.

Sun “KIM’S COMING FOR EUROPE Japan’s PM warns North Korea will soon target EUROPE with nuke missiles as he hails Theresa May’s ‘smooth Brexit”, 31 Aug 2017:

Mrs May said Japan’s investment in Britain was “a powerful vote of confidence in the strength of the UK’s long-term economy” - The comments hint that the two countries could move quickly to strike a free-trade deal as soon as we quit the EU in 2019.

Japan and the UK pledged to work together to face down Kim Jong Un.

JAPAN’S prime minister today warned that North Korea could soon send nuclear missiles to Europe as he hailed Theresa May’s plan for a “smooth Brexit”.

Shinzo Abe called for the UK and other European countries must play a part in the fight against Kim Jong Un, saying the danger would not be confined to Asia.

Speaking ahead of a state banquet in honour of the PM, the leaders of Britain and Japan said they had discussed the threat from North Korea, which this week launched a missile over Japan in a new show of strength.

They agreed the threat is “unprecedented” and pledged to hold joint military exercises in a bid to show dictator Kim Jong Un that his crimes cannot go unpunished.

Mr Abe said: “That threat is felt not only by our country or Asia alone, it has become a global threat including Europe.

“North Korea will launch an ICBM [inter-continental ballistic missile] and the range would include almost the entire region of Europe.”

Mrs May demanded Kim’s ally China do more to restrain him, saying: “We need to ensure it’s not just words of condemnation, but that action is taken.”

READ MORE...