Majorityrights News > Category: World Affairs

That is not anomalous black behavior, Korea, that is what you have in store for you if you let them there:

It is a typical pattern of black behavior - blacks are hyper-assertive

French girl passing by a black, slapped hard by him.

U.S.A., Arkansas: black student gets out of seat, confronts teacher, gets in the teacher’s face, blows cigar smoke in the teacher’s face.

Well, the ladies said they like “confidence” and “masculine assertiveness”, didn’t they?

READ MORE...

BBC News, ‘Libya militia chases away US troops’, 18 Dec 2015 (emphasis added):

Photos posted on Facebook claim to show US troops getting back on their plane shortly after landing.

US forces flown to Libya to support government troops had to leave after landing because of demands from a local militia group, US officials say.

It follows reports that 20 US special forces troops, equipped with advanced weaponry, landed on Monday at an airbase in western Libya.

The troops chose to leave “in an effort to avoid conflict”, a US Africa Command (Africom) spokesman told the BBC.

Libya has been in chaos since the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

The US forces had travelled to Libya in order to “foster relationships and enhance communication with their counterparts in the Libyan National Army”, Africom spokesman Anthony Falvo told the BBC.

The soldiers left without incident, he added.

Analysis: Rana Jawad - BBC North Africa correspondent

It is undoubtedly an embarrassing revelation for the Americans.

The timing of the incident, so close to the long-awaited deal signed by Libya’s rival parliaments on Thursday, has fuelled speculation among Libyans over what they see as the ulterior motives of the US and other Western nations.

There has been increasing suspicion that foreign troops are looking to establish their presence on the ground in Libya, especially with the so-called Islamic State grabbing more territory in recent months.

Reactions on social media ranged from accusations that the US was promoting one side of the conflict, to questions over the West’s long-term military aims in Libya.

Western nations have repeatedly spoken of their intent to support Libyan armed forces to help secure the country and combat extremism.

However, if nothing else, the incident chiefly serves as a reminder of the challenges foreign military forces will face trying to operate in a country with no central security structure.

Mr Falvo did not elaborate further on why the troops’ landing at al-Wattiya airbase had seemingly not been cleared with the relevant Libyan groups on the ground.

The airbase is not controlled directly by the Libyan army, but by a militia affiliated to it, which may explain the apparent breakdown in communication.

Unnamed Pentagon officials told national media that US forces had been “in and out of Libya” for some time, operating in an advisory, but not a combat role.

Photos of the secret mission were published on the official Facebook page of the Libyan Air Force, saying the troops had landed “without prior coordination”.

It described the forces arriving “in combat readiness wearing bullet proof jackets” carrying night-vision goggles, GPS devices and assault rifles.

Libya’s rival power bases (as of August 2015)

Libya has two rival governments, one based in the main city, Tripoli, and the other about 1,000km (620 miles) away in the port city of Tobruk.

Representatives of the two groups signed a deal in Morocco on Thursday, agreeing to form a national unity government, however their respective leaders voiced their reservations.

With the collapse of law and order in most of Libya, following the disastrous events of the Arab Spring, and the disastrous choice by some western leaders to utilise NATO as air cover for the reactionary Islamist forces that were unleashed by the process, the situation still remains unmanageable after 2011.

In the Greco-Roman era, the Roman Empire held the coastline of what is now known as modern day Libya, because it was a strategic imperative for them to hold it in order to more adequately manage the traffic on the Mediterranean Sea.

In light of the mass migration crisis, or the ‘immivasion’ as some people have taken to calling it, it may be time to consider that imperative again.

There are war mongers operating behind the scenes of power whose motives highly resemble those of the Cold War era: Russia, adjacent geopolitical objectives, resource acquisition and control are seen as central problems which require strong military force.

What is insufficient in John Marshall’s investigative critique and whistle blowing article, however, is a failure to make clear the facts that:

1) The particular people, including at NATO, behind these strategies - viz., war with Russia, control in the Middle East and the borders of Russia - do not identify as White; and are not acting with White (i.e., European peoples) interests in mind first and foremost.

2) In normal ethno-nationalist terms, Russia is, in fact, a problematic nation, which is not circumscribed to their, let alone to our common White/European interests; not committed to cooperation in geopolitical ordering; border and demographic defense; and provisioning of The European Ethno-National Region and its necessary alliance with The Asian Region and its Ethno-Nations.

The point is, these are very real, not trumped-up concerns, and White Nationalism must take the helm in cooperation with Asian Nationalisms to handle these concerns.

I will venture an outline of why that is and how it might come about in few days. I will do this in anticipation that Kumiko will contribute her considerable insight to correct oversights, flesh-out a myriad of details and augment points where emphasis is needed.

My perspective on this is that we’ve got the stuff of war at hand all around us already. It is now up to us to wrest the lines from the hands of Jews and others who do not identify with Whites, to shape and craft the battle lines in White Nationalist interests instead. I will argue that that will require European and Asian cooperation and, in terms of their prior imperialist overreaches and capacity to offer cooperation, a significantly chastened U.S. and Russia.

First, a look at how “obscure people’ can start wars” by John Marshall - talking about Victoria Nuland and her fellow Jewish and neocon cohorts, though, of course, he does not name the YKW as such:

Consortiumnews.com, “How ‘Obscure’ Bureaucrats Cause Wars”, 15 Dec. 2015

Exclusive: Official Washington’s anti-Russian “group think” is now so dominant that no one with career aspirations dares challenge it, a victory for “obscure” government bureaucrats, like Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, as Jonathan Marshall explains.

History isn’t just made by impersonal forces and “great men” or “great women.” Sometimes relatively obscure men and women acting in key bureaucratic posts make a real difference.

Thus, the international crisis in Syria traces back in part to the decision of President Barack Obama’s first ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, to reject peaceful rapprochement with the Damascus regime in favor of “radically redesign[ing] his mission” to promote anti-government protests that triggered the civil war in 2011.

                                                         

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

In much the same way, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland did her best to foment the Feb. 22, 2014 putsch against the democratically elected Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych, “while convincing the ever-gullible U.S. mainstream media that the coup wasn’t really a coup but a victory for ‘democracy,’” as journalist Robert Parry wrote last July.

Nuland, a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and wife of neoconservative luminary Robert Kagan, helped achieve in Ukraine the kind of “regime change” that her husband had long promoted in the Middle East through the Project for a New American Century.

Nuland now has a new counterpart in the Department of Defense who bears close watching for signs of whether the Obama administration will keep escalating military confrontation with Russia over Eastern Europe, or look for opportunities to find common ground and ease tensions.

On Dec. 14, Dr. Michael Carpenter started work at the Pentagon as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, with added responsibilities for the Western Balkans and Conventional Arms Control. He replaced Evelyn Farkas, who stepped down in October.

Farkas was a firebrand who accused Russia of “shredding international law and conventions that have held firm for decades.” In a call to arms straight out of the early Cold War, she wrote, “Russia’s challenge is so fundamental to the international system, to democracy and free market capitalism that we cannot allow the Kremlin’s policy to succeed in Syria or elsewhere.”

In a remarkable display of “projection” — ascribing to others one’s own motives and actions — she declared that “Russia has invaded neighboring countries, occupied their territory, and funded NGOs and political parties not only in its periphery but also in NATO countries.” Its goal, she asserted, was nothing less than “breaking NATO, the EU and transatlantic unity.”

Farkas declared that the United States must continue its military buildup to deter Russia; provide “lethal assistance” to countries on Russia’s periphery, including Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova; and step up economic sanctions “to pressure Russia . . . so that U.S. national security interests and objectives prevail.”

With people like that helping to shape official policy over the past three years, it’s no wonder U.S.-Russia relations have hit such a low point. Might her replacement, Michael Carpenter, take a less confrontational approach?

Carpenter moved to the Pentagon from the office of Vice President Joe Biden, where he was special adviser for Europe and Eurasia. Previously he ran the Russia desk at the National Security Council and spent several years in the Foreign Service.

Carpenter has kept a low public profile, with few publications or speeches to his name. One of his few quasi-public appearances was this April at a symposium on “Baltic Defense & Security After Ukraine: New Challenges, New Threats,” sponsored by The Jamestown Foundation.

His prepared remarks were off the record, but they were greeted warmly — “you’ve hit it right on the head” — by discussant Kurt Volker, former NATO ambassador under President George W. Bush and foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain. McCain has demanded that the United States arm Ukraine to fight Russia and he helped inflame the Ukraine crisis by meeting with the anti-Semitic leader of the country’s right-wing nationalist party for photo-ops in 2013.

During a short Q&A session at the symposium, captured on video, Carpenter declared that “Russia has completely shredded the NATO-Russian Founding Act,” a choice of words strikingly reminiscent of Farkas’s denunciation of Russia for “shredding international law.” He accused Russia of “pursuing a neo-imperial revanchist policy” in Eastern Europe, inflammatory words that Sen. McCain lifted for an op-ed column in the Washington Post a couple of months later. Carpenter also indicated that he would personally favor permanent NATO bases in the Baltic states if such an escalation would not fragment the alliance.

The fact that Carpenter chose to make one of his few appearances at the The Jamestown Foundation is itself highly telling. According to IPS Right Web, which tracks conservative think tanks, the foundation’s president, Glen Howard, “is the former executive director of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, a largely neoconservative-led campaign aimed at undermining Russia by bolstering U.S. support for militant nationalist and Islamist movements in the North Caucasus.” He has also been consultant to the Pentagon and to “major oil companies operating in Central Asia and the Middle East.”

The foundation was formed in 1984 by “a leading Cold Warrior close to the Reagan administration,” with the blessing of CIA Director William Casey, to provide extra funding for Soviet bloc defectors to supplement meager stipends offered by the CIA. Its board members today include former CIA Director Michael Hayden, and previous board members included Dick Cheney and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, a prominent neoconservative activist.

All this matters hugely for several reasons. Increased confrontation with Russia, particularly along its highly sensitive Western border, will continue to poison relationships with Moscow that are crucial for achieving U.S. interests ranging from Afghanistan to Iran to Syria. Ratcheting up a new Cold War will divert tens or hundreds of billions of dollars into military spending at the expense of domestic priorities.

Most important, the action-reaction cycle between NATO and Russia in Eastern Europe is dramatically increasing chances for an unwanted, unneeded and disastrous war involving the world’s great nuclear powers. Ian Kearns, director of the European Leadership Network, noted in a recent commentary for the Arms Control Association:

“Despite protestations by both sides that the exercises are aimed at no particular adversary, it is clear that each side is exercising with the most likely war plans of the other in mind. The Russian military is preparing for a confrontation with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a confrontation with Russia. This does not mean either side has the political intent to start a war, but it does mean that both believe a war is no longer unthinkable. . . .

“Too few appear to recognize that the current cocktail of incidents, mistrust, changed military posture, and nuclear signaling is creating the conditions in which a single event or combination of events could result in a NATO-Russian war, even if neither side intends it.”

In such a way, the actions of relatively minor figures in history – if their provocations are not reined in – can lead the world to cataclysm.

A still pond

Every action has reflections that ripple outward, like when a pebble is cast into a still pond. The enactment of free trade agreements such as NAFTA and, soon to come, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, have additional effects that are only seen in the criminal underworld. Every opening up of trade that occurs, also is an opening up of the potential for the transport of contraband of various sorts.

One of the webs of associations that have grown and become more complex over the past decade is the international drug trade, particularly those groups who interface with the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico. As of December 2015, the components of the international drug trade surrounding the Sinaloa Cartel are as follows:

• Sinaloa Cartel and associates (Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Honduras, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Philippines, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, Nicaragua)
• Gente Nueva (Mexico)
• Artistas Asesinos (Mexico)
• Los Mexicles (Mexico)
• Los Antrax (Mexico)
• Mara Salvatrucha (Mexico, Canada, United States)
• Cosa Nostra (Transatlantic)
• French Mafia (Transatlantic)
• FARC (Colombia)
• United States DEA
• Elements of Mexican government
• Elements of Columbian government
• Elements of Taiwanese government
• Elements of Myanmar government
• Elements of Laotian government
• Elements of Japanese government
• Elements of British government
• Elements of Kosovo government
• Elements of Afghan government
• Kurdish Workers Movement (Middle East)
• Albanian-connected syndicates (Europe, Caucasus)
• Russian Mafia (Russia, Central Asia, Europe)
• Chicago street gangs (Chicago)
• Yamaguchi-gumi (Japan, Transpacific)
• Inagawa-kai (Japan, Transpacific)
• Sumiyoshi-kai (Japan, Transpacific)
• The Seven Star Mob (South Korea, Transpacific)
• The H.S.S. Mob (South Korea, Transpacific)
• 14K (Hong Kong, Transpacific)
• Sun Yee On (Hong Kong, Transpacific)
• The United Bamboo Gang (Taiwan, United States)
• Celestial Alliance (Taiwan, China)
• etc.

Ordinarily I’d draw up a map of how these all interact, along with mainstream news sources, but that would be a time-consuming task, and illustrating how they are all together is not the main purpose of this article. I provide that list only to say that they are together.

The alleged email

With Sinaloa Cartel sitting in the middle of that enterprise with the most to lose and most to gain from the success of the expansion of their operations and the linkages that they are cultivating around the world, it is not surprising that when this amalgamation of interests wishes to take on a human voice without disguise or artifice, it manifests as an email from Joaqin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, which allegedly reads as follows:

Cartelblog, ‘El Chapo sends threatening message to terrorist group ISIS’, 07 Dec 2015 (emphasis added):

[...]

As drugs are not a part of the organizations ideology for a Muslim State, ISIS fighters have been destroying shipments of drugs from the cartels.

The cartels have made it clear that ISIS just made a huge mistake by destroying their shipments. It’s clear from the leaked emails that they are not only extremely mad, but are definitely willing to step up and take the organization out if they continue to mess with their business.

Here’s part of the leaked email:

“You [ISIS] are not soldiers. You are nothing but lowly pussies. Your god cannot save you from the true terror that my men will levy at you if you continue to impact my operation.”

“My men will destroy you. The world is not yours to dictate. I pity the next son of a whore that tries to interfere with the business of the Sinaloa Cartel. I will have their heart and tongue torn from them.”

[...]

To the pious Islamist readers out there, and I know you are out there, be aware of this when you set out on your jihad. Whether that email is real or a creative mock-up of what such an email would look like if it were to be composed, it is basically an accurate reflection of what the mood must be among the high ranks of the various criminal syndicates around the world.

And do not doubt that hearts and tongues will be torn out. So think twice before getting involved. Do you really want your heart and tongue torn out?

With what army?

ISIL fighters have managed to negatively impact the bottom line of weapons manufacturers, oil services companies, agribusinesses, and now drug cartels and those who are invested in the movements of drugs around the world. That has ramifications.

For example, if Yamaguchi-gumi were ever to be listed as a ‘legitimate’ business conglomerate on the Japanese market instead of as multiple companies with obfuscated revenue streams and connections to ‘legitimate’ banks, it would actually be the second-largest private equity group in Japan. And in the west, this same logic applies, as many might remember from the situation involving Citigroup, and Barclays, and Bank of America, and so on.

Some people may have heard of the idea that the world revolves around guns, oil, grain, and drugs. They are right, it does. And some may ask, “What army will open the way for drugs to traverse the Middle East without interception again? The criminal organisations don’t have an army.”

Actually, there is an army which will accomplish that task, although it is not one assembled for that specific purpose. I wonder if anyone can guess which army that is?

Chess and not checkers

The world really is an interesting place, and people sometimes end up with really interesting unintentional-allies. In the coming period, I would propose that it would be prudent for ethno-nationalist groups to adopt a rhetorically nuanced approach to the drug war—much like the one I’m taking in this post—one which takes into account that the criminal syndicates have a potential to be a pseudo-ally to the NATO war effort because of shared interests, although not shared ideals.

People like Donald Trump and his supporters seem not to understand this dynamic, because they seem to want to fight ISIL and the Sinaloa Cartel at the same time. For what purpose? Surely it would always be more sensible to make good use of the cartels against ISIL. Government piggybacking on the trade—which is to say, standing on both sides of the trade—would also generate money from the fact that contraband tends to have enormous profit margins because it is illegal, and piggybacking would also enable the government to understand the market better and to mitigate the trade’s most socially-harmful side-effects ahead of time.

Reuters, ‘OPEC fails to agree production ceiling after Iran pledges output boost’, 04 Dec 2015 (emphasis added):

OPEC members failed to agree an oil production ceiling on Friday at a meeting that ended in acrimony, after Iran said it would not consider any production curbs until it restores output scaled back for years under Western sanctions.

Friday’s developments set up the fractious cartel for more price wars in an already heavily oversupplied market.

Oil prices have more than halved over the past 18 months to a fraction of what most OPEC members need to balance their budgets. Brent oil futures fell by 1 percent on Friday to trade around $43, only a few dollars off a six year low.

Banks such as Goldman Sachs predict they could fall further to as low as $20 per barrel as the world produces more oil than it consumes and runs out of capacity to store the excess.

A final OPEC statement was issued with no mention of a new production ceiling. The last time OPEC failed to reach a deal was in 2011 when Saudi Arabia was pushing the group to increase output to avoid a price spike amid a Libyan uprising.

“We have no decision, no number,” Iranian oil minister Bijan Zangeneh told reporters after the meeting.

OPEC’s secretary general Abdullah al-Badri said OPEC could not agree on any figures because it could not predict how much oil Iran would add to the market next year, as sanctions are withdrawn under a deal reached six months ago with world powers over its nuclear program.

Most ministers left the meeting without making comments.

Badri tried to lessen the embarrassment by saying OPEC was as strong as ever, only to hear an outburst of laughter from reporters and analysts in the conference room.

This is of course an absolutely fantastic development which is part of the reason why securing the Iran nuclear deal was so incredibly important.

Some quick bullet point observations on what this means for the world:

• The OPEC countries will have to keep pumping oil in order to maintain their market share in a vain attempt to prevent Iran from taking it.
• In such a scenario, oil prices fall significantly because of the glut of oil on the market.
• State budgets of oil-producing countries who have not significantly diversified their economies are damaged significantly, sending them possibly into recession and curtailing their geopolitical influence. These include countries like Russia, as well as Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf countries that we can enjoy laughing at.
• The price floor could end up being as low as USD $10 a barrel (WTI) if this keeps up.
• The price ceiling would also be constricted to around USD $50 a barrel (WTI) as the shale producers who are pummelled by the fall in price (at lower prices shale production is non-viable) either optimise their processes or merge with other enterprises that enable them to have the kind of alternate revenue streams that allow them to ‘park’ their shale operations when the price is low and reactivate them when it reaches $50. By this mechanism, a price ceiling is created.
• All oil-purchasing economies benefit from these developments. The European Union benefits, and also most East Asian economies benefit enormously.
• In the case of the poorest East Asian states, the fall in oil prices allows those states the ability to carry out internal adjustments that will enable them to expand welfare provisions, optimise food production, and upgrade hospitals and schools in ways that have needed to be done for a long time.
• The European Union will be able to diversify its energy supply, thus preventing it from being so easily held hostage to Russian geopolitical demands.

If you’re thinking that this sounds like fun, it’s because it is definitely fun.

Vocactive,‘ISIS: “May god spread fear in the homes of the Crusaders.”, 3 Nov 2015:

Fourteen people were killed and at least 17 wounded

“Three lions made us proud. They are still alive,” one ISIS adherent tweeted in Arabic after the shootings at Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino. “California streets are full with soldiers with heavy weapons. The Unites States is burning #America_Burning #Takbir”

Translation:

“Three lions made us proud. They are still alive,” tweeted after the shootings in San Bernardino

After the Paris attacks, confirmed ISIS accounts praised “Lions” as well.

LA Times, San Bernardino shooting live updates: Victims who died ranged in age from 26 to 60, 3 Nov, 2015:

What we know

• Around 11 a.m. on Wednesday, two assailants opened fire in San Bernardino at a party in the Inland Regional Center, police said.
• Fourteen people were killed and 21 wounded. The names of all those injured have not yet been released, but The Times is collecting their names and stories.
• After a Wednesday afternoon car chase, the two armed suspects were killed by police: Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.
• The attackers’ motive is unknown. President Obama, in a statement from the Oval Office Thursday morning, said the shooting was possibly related to terrorism, but might also be workplace related.
• Police said there was “some degree of planning.” The suspects were heavily armed, wearing tactical attire, and had an arsenal of ammunition and pipe bombs in their Redlands home.

A silver lining to terrorism is that it moves us in the direction of having to classify people - e.g., non-White middle-easterners, as a whole - as we are less able to distinguish “the good ones from the bad ones.” That is a necessary step in racial, systemic maintenance.

This is just a hit-and-run news article, I found it absolutely hilarious and perhaps you the readers might as well:

Washington Times, ‘Obama warns Asian leaders to avoid ‘pitfalls’ of America’, 20 Nov 2015: (emphasis added)

[...]

At the town-hall event, Mr. Obama also warned young Asians to guard against racial divisions in politics, saying in the U.S., “it’s still an issue that comes up.”

“I really hope that all of you are fighting against the kinds of attitudes where you organize political parties or you organize interest groups just around ethnic or racial or tribal lines,” Mr. Obama said. “Because when you start doing that, it’s very easy for people to start thinking that whoever is not part of my group is somehow less than me. And once that mindset comes in, that’s how violence happens. That’s how discrimination happens. And societies that are divided ethnically and racially are almost never successful over the long term.”

He said in the U.S., “we’ve struggled with this for over 200 years, but it’s still an issue that comes up.”

“And so I would guard against that here in your home countries,” the president added.

[...]

We hear you, Obama. And do you know what the best way to guard against that problem is? Don’t import tens of millions of people into a continent who don’t belong there and are hostile to its people, social mores, and value systems.

Because societies that are divided ethnically and racially are almost never successful over the long term.

What is behind Netanyahu’s “gesture” presented last Wednesday to German Chancellor Merkel?

In an ostensible gesture, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, proposed to relieve Nazi Germany ergo present day Germany of complete guilt for the holocaust.

Netanyahu suggested that at the point when Hitler met with the Palestinian Mufti in November 1941, that he did not intend to exterminate the Jews but had a sincere plan to merely expel them to Palestine.

Netanyahu continued, that when the Mufti refused to agree, Hitler asked what then should be done with the Jews? The Mufti responded, “burn them.” Netanyahu then claimed with that, that “the Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and a partner and adviser to Eichmann and Hitler for the execution of this plan.”

..................

Most people would be satisfied with putting Netanyahu’s rendition aside for the obvious absurdities that arise to its credibility from the outset. Why would Hitler seriously expect the Palestinians to agree to allow Jews, or any non-Palestinians (but especially Jews), to immigrate to his country? That is, how could it have been a serious proposal by Hitler? The answer is that it could not have been, and it wasn’t. It was a bluff, a typical ploy of Hitler’s: “well, we tried.”

To a lesser extent it was also an occasion to discuss with the Palestinians how they might cooperate with Nazi Germany. However, the idea that Hitler seriously sought council from the Mufti and followed his lead in regard to how to deal with Jews is risible.

There is all kinds of evidence that Nazi Germany, in accordance with Hitler’s designs, had already commenced with killing Jews as a solution the Jewish problem as they saw it; and had no problem with killing, exterminating Jews; there is even evidence of an emergent plan that regarding the Jews that he did allow to escape to Palestine, that they were facilitated in going there upon the agreement with Muslims that they would be taken care of there, in subsequent cooperation between Nazi Germany and Muslims to make sure that they could never become ensconced in the area.

..................

No serious ethno-nationalist is accepting Netanyahu’s dealing of the card of Hitler’s absolution at anywhere near face value.

There are a few relevant exceptions, and it is for their compliant reaction to divide and conquer that Netanyahu plays this card.

1. The philo-semitic counter-jihadists who might be looking to see Israeli actions against Palestinians as more valid than previously understood. They are already in the tank for Israel and Jews, as completely innocent victims and scapegoats. They seek to gain Israel and whatever part of liberal Europe that they can against Islam alone, in perhaps a desperate hope by their non-Jewish component, that Israel will care enough to sincerely help. That is a joke and the plainest level of divide and conquer, which the Gates of Vienna and the Geert Wilders ilk has already bought into.

2. Some foolish Naziphile’s who are unfortunately associated with White Nationalism will take the bait in seeking to absolve Hitler from any responsibility for the holocaust; what is more bizarre is that some of these types tend to hope that Russia will be the great White hope of WN. The Russian/Jewish coalition will exploit this delusional hope that it might cooperate with White Nationalism, while doing all it can to prohibit racial nationalism; let alone allowing for the embrace of those who would resurrect Hitler, the arch enemy of its “Great War” - a war which its entire nation knows expended 25 million and which, to this day, would view such resurgence of German Nazism as its greatest threat, were it not so overly prepared for that contingency: hence, why it probably is that they allow Netanyahu some freeplay with that card - in order to keep Russian and Eastern European people under threat.

3. Merkel and liberals of her ilk whose career, power and license have underpinnings in German guilt are the third category who might respond at face value to Netanyahu’s ploy. Hence, her characteristic response being the opposite - that “no, no, Germany was fully responsible for the holocaust.”  

Getting these three groups to react in an overcompensating manner will invoke responses from other national players that can put Netanyahu’s divide strategy into fuller effect.The overcompensating response invoked in these groups would tend to highlight and align some of the normal German ethno-nationalist positions with a more Naziphilic position, which will undermine and destabilize Merkel’s base by forcing her to distance herself further into her overcompensatingly liberal position in order to maintain her liberal support base. That will then cause few more of the normal ethno-nationalists to display, in frustration, a more forthrightly Nazistic position - nowadays a weak position, as it is limited of itself; divisive not only against German liberals; but normal German ethno-nationalists, who are the authentic opposition to both Merkel and Netanyahu.

                          
While Merkel looks like a deer caught in the headlights, Netanyahu does not look the least bit concerned, does he? He looks upon Merkel with dismissive contempt, as if to say, “do you seriously think you can do anything about it, piss-ant?”

Netanyahu knew that Merkel would never respond in an ethnonationalist way, in anything but an obsequious, liberal way.

Merkel has already obliged by missing what would be an opportunity for a normal ethno-nationalists to say, “thank you for at least conceding that Germany, especially present day Germany, is not fully responsible for what happened in WW2 and was not, even then, some sort of ex-nihilo source of evil, but had an existential conflict with Jews; that was confirmed by the fact that other peoples had highly analogous difficulties with Jews, which even Nazi Germany was willing to discuss and negotiate to some extent. Not only is it clear that Nazi Germany viewed Jewry as a mortal enemy for plain reasons; it is time for Israel and Jewry to stop pretending to be the sheerly innocent victims and light of the world; the time has long since past when subsequent generations of Germans, let alone the rest of Europe as well, should be subject to the blackmail, extortion and bribes of Israel for a war that took the form of a will to kill those who were seen as the enemy, a mortal threat of a people; in the same kind of war that had been conducted by Israel/Jews themselves, so many times, ranging from those chronicled in the Old Testament - e.g., in The Book of Esther that you quoted before U.S. Congress - to the genocidal crimes of Soviet Jewry just prior to World War II - mass exterminations by Jews which Hitler saw as part and parcel of the existential threat he sought to protect Germans from.”

Netanyahu knows her and he knows she won’t say that. She would be taken out of power in the moment she spoke that way. While there may be an aspect of restraint in Merkel’s response, in that she cares that Germans not overcompensate to theirs and other Europeans’ detriment (including for the fact that Jews might just do some nasty things against the German people if she were too flagrant), given that she, herself, has already colluded by setting the worst in motion, that mitigation of potential recrimination is clearly a subservient motivation - she is obviously not overly concerned with the E.G.I. of Germans and other Europeans.

Her concern must be some combination of maintaining her power and some ideals which she holds to be more important than German and other European people. For her ideals, Netanyahu views her with the contempt of a pissant. By pushing her into an ever more compromised liberal position he furthers his interest directly by the dissolution of the German people and any threat of their organized response to what is being done to them by Israel and by Jews more broadly.

By highlighting neo-Nazi efforts to legitimize Hitler, he puts both her and German ethnonationalism in a weak position - forcing her to retrench in her liberal position domestically, less able to compromise against infighting with emergent nationalism, especially displays of ‘Nazism”; while there is only so-far that Hitler advocacy can go abroad. If it does gain any momentum, it will lead into conflict with other European nations - especially Eastern European - and fully act-into the divide and conquer scenario which will already be taking form psychologically as a part of Eastern European and Russian reaction.

Still, Netanyahu does not view Putin with quite the same level of disregard. And it is not likely that Putin and Russia, at this point, are going to be highly threatened by the prospects of Nazi Germany soon re-emerging. Nevertheless, Russia’s people can be provoked and kept at bay, just as Jews are provoked by their own and kept at bay through fear of resurgent Nazism… It will be used to strengthen propaganda to alienate their people from European ethno-nationalists and from supporting their aims: These people are “Nazis”, “fascists”, “racists” and “already 25 million were lost in order to defeat them in ‘The Great War’ - we can never trust them….we must support their liberalization instead.”

As Eastern European nations, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland and more, are inclined to look incredulously upon that Russian “innocence” and resist being subsumed into Russia’s sphere of interest, Russia will be more inclined to allow those who go the way of Europe to be divided, fragmented against others, weakened to powerlessness by the immigration invasion. Russia will cynically allow for divide and conquer and they will try to expand their interests .. in all likelihood, developing closer ties with Israel and Jewish diaspora. That will put a significant damper on hopes of those in German, European and other White ethnonationalists who wish to treat Russia as the great White hope.

Yes, Netanyahu is hoping to divide Europe from Russia. But does the Russian leadership care? Probably not much. They probably have an understanding with Netanhayu. And the real divide and conquer is likely to be in regard to Eastern Europe: still predominantly White and with ethno-nationalistic motivation - with enough experience of Jews to be anti-Semitic, enough experience of Russian/Jewish imperialism to be resistant to its aggrandizement, and, of course, potentially provoked by the resurrections of Hitler so as not to be able to fully cooperate with those who would lord Hitler as the paragon of virtue - hence, Netanyahu’s reason to resurrect Hitler’s legitimacy, to get people talking in the provocative way of Hitler apologists so as to antagonize any cooperation with Russia, but even more-so, any cooperation with Eastern Europe.

In this way, Netanhayhu can attempt to broker a situation where the Jewish/Russian East and the Jewish/corporate West can divide-up Eastern Europe and put at bay the remaining, homogeneous White ethno-national nations and their cooperation to European resistance. Fortunately, it is not necessary for Eastern European ethno-nationalists to act-into Netanyahu’s divide and conquer.

The realistic potential for ethno-nationalist coalitions and regional coalitions are emerging to where the would-be Jewish/Russian brokers will be looked upon not as protectors against Nazism, not even as middle men, not even marginalized in their opinions, but those who will be subject to our will.