Majorityrights News > Category: Military Matters

The Kaepernickan Revolution Not

As ethno-nationalists, we should bear accord with those who would hold that the American flag represents propositional liberalism and ever represents as such, an adversary to ethno-nationalism.

While it is theoretically valid for black football players to protest the history of slavery that is taken for granted in the anthem, it was not just any Whites who brought them to the Americas, it was right wing hubris that brought them to the Americas.

There was no bigger error in history than to bring African slaves to the Americas - a classic right wing hubris compounded ultimately in its disingenuous liberal expression of anti-racism that was not only disastrous for the human ecologies of the Americas both native American and White, but an economic short-cut that threw the world’s economy into a perilous imbalance in relation to Asia; an imbalance from which it has not recovered.

It is a hubris for which we, as ethnonatiolists, have little responsibility and deserve no penalty where we fight the right wing system that brought this about -

Nevertheless, the liberal system will continue to try to penalize us, and disingenuously wall paper our difference from these right wingers, will do all it can to associate our liberation with the right. Many Whites will take the bait - our “enemies” are trying to divide us from our “brothers”, the black Americans - so says the idiot, Father Francis.

It was a hubris, typical of the right wing, falsely and vainly comparing Africans to others - of course finding them “wanting and in need of help” - they are just misguided by the YKW, it is not that these right wingers are complicit with destroying the ethnonationalsm that never would have forcibly mixed Africans with Whites and Native Americans - as they did, in the cases of some tribes to virtual extinction.

Their idea of “inequality” is based on false comparison. In a world where Heidegger can only hope to guide Europeans to be at home in their skins, in their land, among their folk, in a world where the African is always at home, always comfortable, never at a loss and always ready to assert as much - there is no more self righteous, hyper-assertive, aggressive, no more alpha a male, than the black.

Madison Avenue knows this, knows that the puerile follow the alpha, that’s why it leads with it in marketing campaigns; the rest of Jewry knows this too, ready in its institutional positions to pander to the puerile, both male and female.

Thus, we must beware when blacks are upheld as making a revolutionary protest. We must be aware of black nature. Black nature is of Alpha R selection, and like a male lion, it will do nothing but be brought tribute and breed with supplicant females.

The talented tenth, mostly Mulattoes, who are able to function somewhat as leaders of their community, serve to articulate the narratives of how the system supposedly oppresses blacks: but the system does not oppress blacks, the system reacts to blacks and tries to placate them, pays tribute to them.

Blacks are natural compradors and henchmen of the system.

For this creature, “revolution” means solidifying its being imbued in the American power structure; its nature is right wing - whether it can rule or not, this is what it always aims for: “The honorable Elija Muhammad said the black man will rule” - Malcolm X - a Muslim, of course, not a left nationalist. The wish to “rule over others” or the belief in its destiny is right wing.

Blacks will not be revolutionaries of America - America will adjust to them in its puerile idolatry, enshrinement and institutionalization: not only paying them millions and lavishing them with adulation and women for their sports and entertainment, but making endless excuses to engraft them further in the power structure - as illustrated by sports reporter Bob Costas, saying that Kaepernick’s protest is an expression of true American patriotism; and indeed it is. Blacks, adulation of them, no matter how perverted, no matter how unjust, brutal and violent, no matter how lavished with undue reward as a pattern, they are to be adulated as a part of the American institution. And as the admired alpha R selection breeders that they are, they are free to go through women, including what probably should have been your wife, and leave litters of babies behind - everyone else’s social problem, while you wonder how you might pay for one of your own and give it a decent environment.

Their males and the females they impregnate and discard at their convenience are placed on US welfare - to the servitude of everyone else, not to mention that their less athletically capable brothers and sisters are to be set aside government programs, well paying government jobs with solid benefits; also affirmative action and special provisions in corporate America and academia as a result of civil rights court actions (the consent decrees) are to be given them ...not because they are revolutionaries, but because they are an integral part and parcel of feudal enforcement.

What revolution is going to come from these people? Their protest is the protest of consummate alpha pigs, whose tribute is not yet 1,0000 percent granted by the obsequious.

They are not motivated to overturn America; they are motivated to imbue themselves, engraft themselves inexorably within this most powerful right wing system in the world.

Colin Kaepernick, the Mulatto (who looks part Jewish) has a (Egyptian-Muslim) girlfriend who was taught by Jewish professors that America was founded by slave holders - and so it was. She pointed out that a part of the National Anthem - verses that nobody ever sings, knows or adheres-to, verses that were written hundreds of yeas ago by right wingers - can be used as a publicity stunt to further engraft themselves into America’s power structure; this, by pretending on the basis of these long ago verses that they are oppressed in their multi-million dollar football contracts.

She tells a story based on the Jewish wall papering of the White Class, that Whites put blacks in jail for the arbitrary racism of it, not because they want to defend themselves from violent criminals.

In truth, and at best, blacks might alert dissent from American patriotism in this protest, and finally disgust White Americans and others enough to disabuse them of their negrophelia.

But would-be ethnonationalists are not likely to suspend disbelief in the black liberation narrative, as the protest is allowed to proceed and is commended by the liberal, the right wing (they merge) powers that be - they know how to play and deepen the beholdenness of the puerile to the position of blacks as “leaders” of the so called vanguard. Blacks are the ultimate “Whitey be cool stick” for liberals, for the right wing, for puerile females who wish to retain undue privilege, to license.

There should be no enthusiasm from revolutionaries for this protest. Only cold analysis. The danger is to us, that in sympathy and admiration for blacks, as Madison Ave knows, it will only help them to become embedded in “a revolution” of the American system which is no revolution, it is its mere reconstruction, and has them only more privileged in their elite tenth, especially, which will be highly protective and ethnocentric of the rest of black Americans - which will have little concern for the pesky concerns of other’s rank and file.

The Kaepernickan revolution Not

Madison Ave. knows how stupid Whites can be in their right wing reaction, like those of Stormfront, the unbearably stupid “Father Francis” who says blacks should be grateful for having been brought to America for all the good its done them, and Whites should be proud for having liberated the slaves… how benign blacks are, their nature not really so destructive that Whites cannot live with them, they’re just a bit misguided by the YKW. Yet in truth it was the right wing that brought them upon us and unleashed these hyper assertive primitives upon us. They have done no White people a favor, least of all in the virtue signal of liberation and tolerance of a Father Francis - idiot.

Our admiration for their assertion in valid recognition of an ancient injustice of America must be cut short; for they are not liberators, they have been inflicted upon working class Whites and native Americans by right wingers. It is an alpha capacity known all too well to Madison ave and the rest of Jewry to create followers among those who would become assimilated to Mulatto supremacism.

Blacks are not revolutionaries because they are the descendants of alpha selection and alphas are not revolutionaries - blacks will only be bulwarks of the status quo.

One has but to watch the Vietnam documentaries to see that America’s liberal propositionalism is a dubious if not disingenuous and totally destructive prospect to support and export - viz., it illustrates why any conscientious person should be a revolutionary with regard to America.

Some Americans find this out when after signing up for wars in patriotic enthusiasm, they come to realize that they are being used in the most abject way:

Ironically, this is the case of Pat Tillman - the NFL player who left a lucrative contract in order to fight in Iraq - who President Trump invoked as a true patriot in contrast to the kneeling black footballers. If Tillman were alive, he’d be kneeling during the national anthem as well; he did not have opportunity for such widely publicized protest because he was apparently executed by “friendly fire”, when he exasperated fellow troops in Iraq by expressing strong denunciation of the war.

Yes, the mulatto Kaepernick got a tip that attention may be garnered by the liberal press looking for left cover where the National Anthem reveals America to have been on the wrong side side of ethno-nationalism, the workers, “the hirlings.”

But it is up to White ethnonationalism to take the exposure of those flagrantly dissatisfied with the American flag, even those who in economic terms perhaps should not be dissatisfied, as a point of departure to coordinate matters of ethnic genetic interests, ethnonational liberation with Indios, Amerindians and Asians.

Lyrics

  O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
  What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
  Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
  O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
  And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
  Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
  O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
  O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

  On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
  Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
  What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
  As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
  Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
  In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
  ‘Tis the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave
  O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

  And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
  That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
  A home and a country, should leave us no more?
  Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
  No refuge could save the hireling and slave
  From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
  And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
  O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

  O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
  Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation.
  Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land
  Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
  Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
  And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’
  And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
  O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

It is not valid for protests, which would be rightfully directed against right wingers, to be allowed to brush and wall paper all Whites as privileged implementors and beneficiaries across the board (talking about taking genetic interests, quality of life and stress or lack there-of into the equation, not just economic numbers) of that right wing hubris - as ethnonationalists, it is dubious to admire these blacks in their protests. Their assertion is right wing, and to wish to share in their assertiveness is the way of puerile females and right wing pandering to that powerful gate-keeping position in the disorder of modernity. Madison Ave knows this, Jews know this, that they can shepherd the sheep through the alpha….Stormfront and the unbearable “Father Francis” apparently are oblivious to this, the alpha nature of blacks that his techno-nerdom allows him to weasel around, to build psychological fire walls around and do calculative gymnastics to sympathize with the blacks who are being pushed-out by Mexican gangs - rather than saying “go Mexicans!” as we do, they sympathize with these blacks on multi-million dollars of collective welfare, government jobs and programs, multi million dollars in celebrity careers ... they protest their “oppression”.... for they are not revolutionaries, they are a part of their same right wing system, and seek only to engraft themselves more fully into its central governance.

True Briton by Oswald Mosley

Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement

Oswald Mosley died in 1980 but his ideas live on. ‘Ten Points For Action’ was published forty years ago but they are still relevant. Compare these visionary policies to the paranoid fantasies of the far-right.

1) Action to Build Houses. We want Action to solve the housing problem. It should be taken out of the hands of local authorities and entrusted to Government leadership with powers to mass produce houses and flats like an ‘operation of war’, turning out homes as munitions were mass-produced in time of war.

2) Stop the Land and Rent Rackets. Give the Government the power to acquire land at pre-boom prices and to finance housing by low-interest loans, paid for by high-interest charges on all non-essential and luxury building. Such action would bring down house prices and rents and at last provide good but cheap housing for all.

3) Stop Immigration - Start Repatriation. We want Action to ease the pressure on housing and other social problems (like the reintroduction of diseases unknown in Britain for hundreds of years) by stopping all further immigration and by repatriating all post-war immigrants to good jobs and conditions in their homelands, to which prosperity had been restored by using the surplus wealth and production of united Europe. But Britain could make a start now before the complete union of Europe is achieved.

4) Choice in Education and Health. We want Action to build good schools, colleges, universities and hospitals, just as we would mass-produce houses and flats. Parents should have a choice of schools for their children. We should not be taxed to provide those health services we will never use (maternity benefits for confirmed bachelors!) but free to pay in proportion to our requirements.

5) Free Speech - Law and Order. We want Action to ensure freedom of speech for everyone, guaranteed by the Government, which has a duty to maintain law and order in the State and to take effective action against mob violence, which today denies freedom of expression to any views of which its agitators disapprove. Let us maintain local police forces with their local knowledge and experience, but let us supplement them with a highly-trained, well-equipped, mobile national police force, to put down organised crime and to maintain public order.

We would ensure freedom of the Press for both newspapers and the public. Any man who felt himself misrepresented in the Press should be guaranteed (by law) equal space to reply in the newspaper concerned. This would free the public from the expense of seeking justice through costly libel action and free the newspapers from the legal blackmail of a threatened libel action by some unscrupulous racketeer.

6) Capital Punishment. The death penalty should be restored to the statute book, to be used sparingly in the case of premeditated murder. The Court of Appeal should have a solemn duty to reprieve if in any doubt. The sentence could be carried out not by hanging, but by a quick and painless injection or by some other humane method.

7) Action in Europe. To put these policies into practice Britain must advance beyond the concept of a so-called united Europe and Common Market to which the Conservative Party has at last been converted and which the Labour Party still opposes. We must advance quickly to “Europe a Nation”, which we have advocated since 1948. We stand for a union of all Europe, our former white Dominions and southern Africa, a great “third force” independent of both America and Russia.

This “third force” must have a central government for its defence, the economy, finance and scientific development, with power to raise wages and control prices as production increases for a guaranteed market, insulated against unfair competition from the rest of the world.

We need a European army, equipped with the most modern weapons to defend our continent against attack from any quarter. This should be financed on a European budget, instead of each small country straining its economy to finance its own defence.

8) National and Regional Governments. There should be independent national and regional governments for each European country and the main regions. This would enable England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and other European countries and regions to have their own parliaments for internal affairs and for the preservation of their national and regional cultures.

9) The Irish Problem. The ultimate solution to the Irish problem is the union of that country within a united Europe. But the bloodshed must first be brought to an end by a free vote on a county basis in each of the Six Counties and a subsequent readjustment of the border. The bulk of the Catholic population in the North would then be ruled (as is their wish) from Dublin, with a lessening of present tensions, the IRA would lose its bases in the North and the British Army would have a much shorter border to patrol against infiltration from the South. In this improved situation agreement could more easily be reached on the eventual union of Ireland, with the rights of the Protestant minority protected and guaranteed by European government.

10) Government of National Union. We stand for a government of national union and effective action, drawn from the whole nation, from the professions and the trade unions, arts and science, the law and the armed forces. Government elected by the whole people alone should govern. It should have power to lead the economy, raising wages and controlling prices as science increased production. Then we will have cooperation instead of conflict in industry.

We want Action to halt the “brain drain” and to arouse a new spirit of national service in our British people, by relating all reward directly to skill, effort, initiative and responsibility. There should be “great reward for great service”, crowned by higher pensions drawn from the wealth of the new economic system, as the reward in old age for those who had loyally served the nation throughout their lives.

Source - Bill Baillie, European Outlook, September 2017

Long Live The Sacred Nations of Europe by Oswald Mosley

The US has now opened its first base inside Israel; meaning that US soldiers now will be in there and thus bound to it in a way that historically did not exist prior to this moment. No longer a satrap, it will be a ready base of operations prefigured for joint US/Israeli retaliation and deployment - markedly for operations against Iran at this point.

MSN, “US opens first permanent military base in Israel”, 19 Sept 2017:

Israel and U.S. officials on Monday inaugurated the first permanent American military base in the country, which will house dozens of U.S. troops and a missile defense system.

The base will be located within the Israel Defense Forces Air Defense School in southern Israel, near Beersheba, Defense News reported.

The facility will include a barracks and several other buildings for U.S. troops to be stationed in the country, as well as systems to identify and intercept various aerial threats. It will operate under Israeli military directives.

“We inaugurated, with our partners from the United States Army, an American base, for the first time in Israel,” Brigadier General Tzvika Heimowitz, head of Israeli missile defences, told journalists. “An American flag is flying permanently over a US army base situated inside one of our bases.”  (Tsafrir Abayov/Associated Press)

Israeli Air Force Brigadier General Zvika Haimovich said the base is largely to serve as “a joint Israeli and American effort to sustain and enhance our defensive capabilities,” and will not bring operational changes such as training or exercises.

“It’s a message that says Israel is better prepared. It’s a message that says Israel is improving the response to threats,” Haimovich, the commander of Israel’s aerial defense, told Associated Press.

The Pentagon already operates an independent facility nearby in the Negev Desert. The facility is used only by The US and is meant to detect and warn of a possible ballistic missile attack from Iran.

Israel has been increasingly concerned with Iran’s development of long-range missiles and considers the country to be its greatest threat.

      * 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...

The YKW and right wing collude with Islam.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is the comprador of compradors.

In what is going on a decade of the got-up (((paleoconservatism)) of the (((“alt-right”))), one of the key reasons its Jewish conception has fashioned “the left” as the grand-enemy is because left nationalism, its syndicalism, is a grand adversary of Abrahamism - especially the Islamic variant, a universalizing credo which prohibits ethnonational unionizations. Islam, as instituted by comprador imams, functions thereby as feudalist thuggery on behalf of Jewry and complicit right wingers - who make deals with the Islamic comprador (a middleman slave driver/enforcer upon the local population, killing them where they interfere) to exploit the labor and resources of would-be sovereign ethnostates.

Reuters, “Trump, Malaysia’s Najib skirt round U.S. probe into 1MDB scandal”, 12 Sept 2017:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump welcomed Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak to the White House on Tuesday, praising his country for investing in the United States while steering clear of an American investigation into a Malaysian corruption scandal.

The visit is important for Najib, who faces elections next year and wants to signal he is still welcome at the White House despite a criminal probe by the U.S. Justice Department into a state fund called 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Flanked by top advisers in the Cabinet Room, Najib told Trump that Malaysia Airlines would buy 25 Boeing 737 jets and eight 787 Dreamliners, and would probably add another 25 737s in the near future - a deal he said would be worth more than $10 billion within five years.

Najib said Malaysia’s Employees Provident Fund, a major pension fund, wanted to spend $3 billion to $4 billion on U.S. infrastructure development.

Najib enjoyed close ties with Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, playing golf in Hawaii in 2014, but relations cooled over human rights issues as well as the 1MDB scandal.

Najib founded the fund, which is facing money laundering probes in at least six countries including the United States, Switzerland and Singapore. He denies wrongdoing.

The U.S. Justice Department has said more than $4.5 billion was misappropriated from 1MDB by high-level officials of the fund and their associates, according to dozens of civil lawsuits it filed last year.

The Justice Department sued to seize some $1.7 billion in assets it said were bought with misappropriated 1MDB funds, but asked for a stay on its civil lawsuits in August because it was conducting a related criminal probe.

The White House had said it would not comment on the Justice Department investigation but a senior U.S. official acknowledged it was unusual to meet with Najib while 1MDB was under regulatory scrutiny.

“It’s a weird situation, no doubt,” the official said, explaining that the administration has prioritized developing relations with Southeast Asia to counter “huge gains” China has made in the region.

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.

Trump gained the White house through a pledge to un-do the Iran deal and a claim that was his inspiration to run for President.

Newsweek, “Tillerson, Mattis and McMaster Present Trump With Plan to Stop Iranian Aggression”, 12 Sept 2017:

A Kurdish-Arab coalition known as the Syrian Democratic Forces has been battling ISIS in eastern Syria but has encountered hostile fire from Iranian-backed forces, as well as Syrian rebels backed by Turkey.

Taking Newsweek’s word for it, one would believe Iran is the aggressor and on the wrong side of this one - but is this true?

Ibid: Trump has railed against the landmark nuclear deal signed in July 2015 between the Islamic Republic and six world powers, threatening on the presidential campaign trail to rip up the agreement that lifted sanctions in return for reining in the country’s uranium enrichment program.