Majorityrights News > Category: That Question Again

Well, here’s a story:

Bloomberg, ‘Hungary’s Orban Says Germany Struck ‘Secret’ Turkey Refugee Deal’, 02 Dec 2015 (emphasis added):

Angela Merkel with Ahmet Davutoglu.

• EU may take up to 500,000 refugees from Turkey, Orban says
• German government official denies that secret deal was made

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a staunch opponent of accepting refugees into the European Union, said Germany struck a “secret pact” with Turkey to take in as many as half a million people.

The initiative, which wasn’t part of a weekend agreement between Turkey and the EU on curbing the flow of refugees, may be announced by Germany within days, Orban told a forum of ethnic Hungarian leaders in Budapest on Wednesday. European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans dismissed reports of a covert deal as “nonsense.”

“Beyond what we agreed with Turkey in Brussels there’s something that doesn’t figure in the agreement,” Orban said. “We’ll wake up one day—and I think this will be announced in Berlin as soon as this week—that we have to take in 400,000 to 500,000 refugees directly from Turkey.”

Facing the biggest influx of refugees since World War II and reeling from the terrorist attacks in Paris last month, the EU over the weekend agreed to relaunch Turkey’s bid for membership in the bloc and offered a package of 3 billion euros ($3.2 billion) to help finance refugee camps.

French Reaction

“France and Germany are working together to manage the flow of migrants, which is a challenge to everyone,” French government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters in Paris on Wednesday. “Last weekend the union reached an agreement with Turkey,” and Orban should be aware of the details since he was there, Le Foll said.

A German government official, requesting anonymity because EU-Turkey talks are ongoing, said Orban’s claim that Germany made a secret deal is false.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker met with the leaders of eight member states on the sidelines of the EU-Turkey summit in Brussels, spokeswoman Mina Andreeva told reporters on Nov. 30 without disclosing details of the meeting. The EU commission agreed to prepare a framework for a “voluntary scheme” by Dec. 15, she said.

While some leaders, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have insisted Europe must honor its asylum commitments and want EU members to accept refugees according to binding quotas, others such as Orban reject immigration by Muslims and sealed off their borders with fences. Merkel also confirmed after the Brussels summit that she had met with seven other EU leaders to discuss a plan to settle refugees from Turkey.

The plan to take in refugees from Turkey directly was also raised at a summit of EU leaders in Malta last month and was shelved after it became clear that some countries including Hungary were prepared to use their veto power to block it, Orban said.

“There’ll be tremendous pressure on us” and on other central European countries “that if somebody already agreed to this—and to avoid causing a diplomatic tussle by naming the country I’m not going to say where Berlin is—that we shouldn’t just take them in but distribute them according to binding quotas,” Orban said. “This nasty surprise is still waiting for Europeans.”

People have underestimated the Hungarians, but it seems that they are truly acting as Europe’s demographic gendarme at this stage in the game.

Hopefully whatever the people in Berlin are cooking up this time, will be stopped through the valiant efforts of the people on the streets, through mass protests and mass demonstrations.

Convicted spy Jonathan Pollard was released after 30 years in jail

       
Jonathan Pollard was a spy on behalf of Israel

Israel turned around and gave the information to The Soviet Union

The United States continues to provide Israel daily and yearly, with billions of dollars, information, technology and military support.

U.S. Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger (himself partly Jewish), considered Pollard as damaging as any spy ever to U.S. interests.

It is difficult for me, even in the so-called “year of the spy,” to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by the defendant in view of the breadth, the critical importance to the U.S., and the high sensitivity of the information he sold to Israel. - Casper Weinberger

Jewish News Online, Spy Jonathan Pollard is released after 30 years in jail, Nov 10, 2015:

Convicted spy Jonathan Pollard has been freed after three decades behind bars.

The 61-year-old was jailed for life in 1987 for passing US defence documents to Israel, but was released on Friday morning, ending one of the most contentious diplomatic issues between the US and Israel.

Under the terms of his parole, he will not be permitted to leave the US for five years without special permission from the president, but he has offered to renounce his citizenship if granted his wish to move to Israel with the wife he married while in prison.

His request is being backed by two New York Democrats who have written to the attorney general.

Gerald Nadler and Elliot Engel said: “Despite the serious consequences that may follow such a decision, including being permanently barred from returning to the United States, he is willing to undertake this measure.”

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement: “The people of Israel welcome the release of Jonathan Pollard.

“After three long and difficult decades, Jonathan has been reunited with his family. May this Sabbath bring him much joy and peace.”

Mr Netanyahu said: “The people of Israel welcome the release of Jonathan A Pollard. As someone who raised Jonathan’s case for years with successive American presidents, I had long hoped this day would come.”

Pollard’s release from a federal prison in Butner, North Carolina, came nearly three decades after his arrest for handing over classified US government information to Israel.

His release caps one of the most high-profile spy sagas in modern American history. Supporters said he was punished excessively for actions taken on behalf of an American ally, while critics, including government officials, derided him as a traitor who sold out his country.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt that the crime merited a life sentence, given the amount of damage that Mr Pollard did to the United States government,” said Joseph diGenova, who prosecuted the case in Washington. “I would have been perfectly pleased if he had spent the rest of his life in jail.”

[...]

Israeli media said Thursday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu requested Obama allow Pollard to move immediately to Israel, waiving the otherwise mandatory five years’ parole in America.

               
                    Poles burn effigy of an ultra-Orthodox Jew holding an E.U. flag

Jerusalem Post, ‘Jew burned in effigy by Polish anti-migrant demonstrators’, Nov 18, 2015:

Anti-migrant resentment boiled over into anti-Semitism in Poland on Wednesday, when a protest against taking in Muslim refugees ended with the burning of an effigy of an ultra-Orthodox Jew holding the flag of the European Union.

Several dozen people were reported in attendance at the rally, in the western Polish city of Wroclaw, which was held in response to last Friday’s Paris terrorist attacks, one of whose perpetrators was said to have entered the EU with the flood of Syrian refugees.

The crown shouted: “United Catholic Poland! National radicalism! Down with the European Union!” The demonstration was organized by the National Radical Camp and All-Polish Youth.

“Our duty, the duty of lawmakers and the government, is to say that we won’t take a single Islamist in to Poland because Poland is for Poles,” proclaimed one of the demonstration’s speakers. .

At the end of the demonstration one of the participants set fire to a previously prepared effigy of a haredi Jew as the crowd chanted, “God, honor and fatherland!”

READ MORE...

One of the best litmus tests as to whether or not one is being too liberal, too promiscuous with regard to sex, is whether or not you need to use a condom. If you don’t know someone well enough to be sure that you are not going to get a disease or have an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe you ought to get to know them better before having sex with them. If you really like someone and if they are really worth it, you are not likely to have to use condoms at all. And would you really like to use them?

Subtitle: don’t forget to forget your condom. A.I.D.S. is a most beautiful disease, generally targeting people who deserve to die for their bullying, irresponsible, reckless treatment of sex.

Particularly when the bounds of EGI are unguarded, the need to treat sex carefully, as an act which can endorse or undermine our EGI, becomes all the more important. It will be used by our enemies in psy-ops, such as the profusion of interracial porn. It will be used by our enemies to promote liberal politics, empower those horribly destructive to our interests and to dis-empower those thoughtful of our interests - those concerned with our people in our broad pattern. It will be used by our antagonists to outbreed our race, including outbreeding some of our most qualitatively differentiated genetic capital. As de facto safeguards of liberalism, they have their go-to “moral arguments” to distract us from the moral re-ordering of our people.

After marriage, the condom is taken by liberalism as one of its lines of defense. Don’t be fooled, there’s no substitute for the White class and its bounds. This holds your freedom in sacrament and in celebration that gives our people life and health as opposed to destruction.

There can be a time to be Dionysian, promiscuous for some who choose to be - i.e., among our own people - but that time is when the borders or our EGI are secured and members accounted for. Until then, good riddance to those who treat our genetic treasures irresponsibly; it couldn’t happen to worse, more deserving people of a miserable fate.

Don’t you just feel so sorry for her…

Always remember, er, forget your condom. If you think that you have to use one, you’d better get to know who you are screwing around with a little better - maybe a lot better.

Daily Beast, ‘Porn World in Panic Over Charlie Sheen’s HIV Diagnosis’, Nov 20, 2015:

‘There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…’

Well-known for his porn star companions, Charlie Sheen’s recent admission to being HIV-positive has sent a ripple of fear through the adult industry. There’s no protocol in place for this. There are no records of who Sheen’s hired, thus no quarantine list for the porn stars he’s been sexually active with.

In the semi-regulated world of adult film, when an HIV scare is made known everyone asks, “Did I perform with the person who tested positive?” Fear turns to panic if it was a close call, relief if it wasn’t. That’s only after a name is released—or patient zero comes forward. Production shuts down, quarantine lists are drawn up for first generation, second, third, and so on. An ideal “who’s performed with whom” list chronicling before and after known exposure is made available. Some call this “the honor system.”

Unfortunately, those outside the business don’t always play by the industry’s self-regulated rules. Needless to say, former Two and a Half Men actor Charlie Sheen plays by his own rules.

“There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…like who have I had sex with that has had sex with them, or have I had sex with a girl who has had sex with Charlie?” says Alana Evans, 2015 AVN Hall of Fame recipient. “Maybe we can get Charlie to put together a list of all the porno girls he’s had sex with so the rest of us can make sure we’re okay? That’d be great.”

In case you missed it, Sheen admitted on the Today Show that he was HIV-positive, and has known of his diagnosis for four years. He also alleged “all sexual partners have known” about his condition with “no exception.”

While some are applauding Sheen for his bravery in coming forward, there’s speculation amongst industry insiders as to why now? Some credit the 27-year-old blonde who spoke anonymously to the Daily Mail with forcing Sheen’s hand. She estimates the A-lister had sex with at least 50 porn stars since his diagnosis and “fears the porn industry could face an ‘HIV epidemic’ as a result.”

‘There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…’

Sheen’s latest role as victim is a bit hard to swallow. He paints a vivid portrait of his suffering at the mercy of his addictions, depression, and multi-million dollar extortions from ex-lovers. Even so, that his two ex-goddesses are contradicting his story raises questions concerning his credibility.

Ex-goddess Bree Olson, who dated and lived with Sheen for seven months in 2011, appeared on The Howard Stern Show to claim she had no idea about her ex’s condition, and claimed she learned about his HIV-positive status “right along with everyone else.”

“He never said anything to me,” Olson added. “I was his girlfriend. I lived with him. We were together. We had sex almost every day for a year—with lambskin condoms.”

Now lambskin condoms—incredibly thin condoms are billed as providing the closest thing to not using condoms at all—only guard against pregnancy and do not prevent the transmission of HIV. Olson told Stern that while she wanted to use standard Trojan condoms, lambskin was Sheen’s condom of choice.

While Olson tested negative for HIV, in Sheen’s home state of California it’s a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison for a person with HIV to have unprotected sex with the intent to infect someone who’s unaware of their status. Though that is incredibly hard to prove in criminal court, California also has a misdemeanor charge carrying up to six months in prison for willfully exposing others to HIV.

No thoughtful person makes AIDS prevention a cause.

Of the hundreds, or thousands, of women who made themselves available to Magic Johnson, he said: “I tried to accommodate as many as possible. Some of them were unbelievable.”

This liberalism, this irresponsibility to our EGI, is not what we’re here to defend. With unspeakable irresponsibility and selfish uncaring (to say the least), they bring into the world behavior and genetics destructive to any reflective people - especially our European people.

Africa is one of the only places where AIDS is on the rise. That is good. Their population needs to be drastically reduced and its increase, let alone interbeeding with others, needs to be thwarted.

Magic, er, E.T. says, “Remember to not use a condom. AIDS is a beautiful thing.” It kills those irresponsible and reckless with our EGI.

Because not all merit defense, we need an order to secure those who do. 14

“No glove no love”, so the motto of condom proponents goes - a condom being referred to as a “glove”, in their liberal slang.

With “Sheen preferring ‘lambskin condoms”, in particular, an older slogan comes to mind as particularly apt to capture the refrain of those who would contest their liberalism - they are treating those who engage in reckless and socially destructive behavior “with kid gloves” - that is to say, they are protecting them too much and therefore enabling bad behavior in the long term.

Handle with kid gloves

Meaning

Handle a situation, or a person or an object, delicately and gingerly.

Origin

Kid gloves are, of course, gloves made from the skin of a young goat. I say ‘of course’ but, in fact, when they were first fashioned in the 18th century they were more often made from lambskin, as that was easier to come by. They were clearly not intended for use when you were pruning the hedge and wearing kid gloves was the sartorial equivalent of pale white skin, that is, it indicated that the wearer was rich enough to indulge in a life of genteel indoor idleness. The earliest mentions of kid gloves are from England in the 1730s and the following is a typical report of a wealthy gentleman, laid out in his ‘Sunday best’, from Bagnall’s News, in The Ipswich Journal, December 1734:

The Corpse of Mr. Thorp, A Distiller in Soho, who died a few Days since, said to be worth £10000 was put into his Coffin, quilted within with white Sattin; and after several yards of fine Holland [best-quality linen] were wrapt about his Body… on his Head was a Cap of the same Holland tied with a white Ribbond; he has about his Neck two Yards of Cambrick; a Cambrick Handkerchief between his Hands, on which he had a pair of white Kid Gloves: and in this manner he lay in state some Days and was afterwards buried in Buckinghamshire.

At that time, kid gloves were viewed as rather ostentatious and only suitable for the nouveau riche - much as heavy gold chains might be viewed today.

* No peace sign executed by Kumiko

It is not time for peace, but for the comprehensive conceptualization of non-European peoples as other, their place overwhelmingly is not among Europeans, and their imposition upon European EGI an act of war that calls for war in response.

Further, this calls for the undoing of “anti-racism”, reversing it, to a legitimization of the comprehensive social classification of peoples, including full comprehension of non-Europeans, including their outliers (their “nice exceptions” to their pejorative patterns) as distinct others to be discriminated against in accordance of European interests. 

Important and true though that statement is, it is necessary to capture the point in a pithy caption, that this is not a time for peace nor to be concerned for “the nice ones”, if “the nice ones” refuse our terms and/or will not go back to their native countries, from amidst our citizenship. We would more assuredly die through differential birthrates and interbreeding with “the nice ones” than we would through acts of terrorism.

So, let there be a contest to capture the nuance of our concerns: supply a caption for the image, something like “No peace for non-European imposition”... or “No peace for non-European invaders”, etc.

* Note: Kumiko and I had the same reaction (revulsion) to the peace sign in this context. When I saw it I was eager to make a statement to the effect of, no! it is not the time for that and this does not represent our stance. I wanted to put up the image with the typical street-sign type of cross-out (circle with one diagonal line through the center - in this case, over the peace sign). I discussed it with Kumiko and she was thinking something quite similar, but only much more emphatic - she was considering using an X scribbled with enraged thoroughness through the peace sign… but it was so thorough that you could barely see that there was a peace sign there. Still, I liked her idea of the hand written zeal of the strike through the peace sign, and suggested just one diagonal strike so that what was being crossed-out could still be seen; she agreed and we both had a try to see which of our renderings looked best. Interestingly, we both chose the same color, but hers looked better and there it is.

Despite our pugnacious enthusiasm, Ryan raises a hand of restraint, itemizing “peace as war” campaigns that had backfired. I wonder if that is not all the more reason to be explicit about who our enemies are. Kumiko is going to have some very interesting things to say about that in days to come in a discussion of the neo-cons.

And she might add her own evergreen post about the anti-peace sign.

In the meantime, I am importing the first few comments by way of responding to them in a first comment, and Kumiko’s first comment will be added here (though I will also leave the comments under the Paris attack thread).

Kumiko Oumae in comment 148102 on Sun, 15 Nov 2015:

1. Yes. When I saw all these people holding up these idiotic signs calling for peace, the first thing I wanted was to cross it out because now is not the time for some mawkish calls for ‘peace’. So that logo is one that will be used on Majorityrights so that we can express our fundamental disagreement with their idea of ‘peace’.

As the latest in a long line of churches doing things that ethno-nationalists do not like, the Polish Episocopate has now decided to make sure that you really know that they are against anti-semitism:

Radio Poland, ‘Polish Episcopate condemns anti-semitism as ‘a sin’‘, 20 Oct 2015: (emphasis added)

The Polish Episcopate has published an extensive condemnation of anti-semitism on the 50th anniversary of a landmark Vatican declaration on relations with non-Christian religions.

In a special pastoral letter entitled ‘The shared spiritual heritage of Christians and Jews’, the Episcopate stressed that “anti-semitism and anti-Judaism are sins against the love of thy neighbour.”

The letter notes that the Church organises an annual ‘Day of Judaism’, affirming however that “Christian-Jewish dialogue must never be treated as ‘the religious hobby’ of a small group of enthusiasts, but it should increasingly become part of the mainstream of pastoral work.”

The Polish clerics also acknowledged that the Holocaust, which was planned by “Nazi Germany and largely carried out on the territory of occupied Poland,” nevertheless “sometimes met with indifference among certain Christians.”

According to the Episcopate, “if Christians and Jews had practised religious brotherhood in the past, more Jews would have found help and support from Christians.”

In that respect, the Espiscopate particularly praises the ‘Righteous among Nations’ who “risked their lives and those of their loved ones, heroically rescuing Jews” during the war. Under the Nazi occupation, giving shelter to Jews by Poles was punishable by death.

“In many places in our country there are no Jews, only traces of their religion and culture, often in neglected cemeteries,” the letter notes.

“The Love of thy neighbour, and the spiritual bond with our older brothers in the faith obliges us to care for the places that bear witness to the centuries-long presence of Jews in Poland and the memory of their contribution to the culture of our multinational and multireligious country.”

The document pays tribute to the conciliatory efforts of previous members of the Roman Catholic Church, including Polish pontiff Pope John Paul II, who was the first pope to visit a synagogue, and a committed leader of dialogue with Jews.

The so-called ‘Nostra aetate’ (In our time) declaration made during the Second Vatican Council 50 years ago under Pope Paul VI is regarded as a breakthrough regarding relations with non-Christian religions.

Thaw

During the communist era, academic debate concerning the Holocaust was largely frozen in Poland.

An anti-Zionist campaign led by the government in 1968 compelled several thousand Polish Jews who had survived the war to emigrate. After that, Jewish issues were taboo in many aspects of officially endorsed Polish culture.

It was not until the 1980s that a reassessment of Polish-Jewish relations began in earnest, a trend that gathered pace following the collapse of communism in 1989.

Previously little discussed stains on Poland’s wartime treatment of Jews have been highlighted in recent years, owing to books such as Jan Gross’s Neighbours (2001), which focused on what had been a largely forgotten massacre of Jews by ethnic Poles in the town of Jedwabne, north eastern Poland.

Such issues remain highly emotive and divisive in Poland. (nh/rk)

Under any sane ethno-nationalist framework, the burden should not be on ethno-nationalists to explain why Jews ‘should be regarded as a separate people who ought to live outside of Europe’, the burden instead should be on everyone else to explain and to attempt to justify why Jews ‘should be allowed’ to persistently be part of Europe while not being European.

For every other non-European population group whose people are inside Europe in any number, that is how the burden of proof works when having that discussion. You have to prove how you are useful to Europe, at the very least. But mysteriously, when it comes to the issue of Jews, that burden of proof is reversed. Why?

• Is it because Jews can ‘pass as white’?
• Or is it because of extensive application of guilt narratives in the post war environment?
• Or is it because Christianity is part of the Judaic jurisdiction?

Oh, actually, it’s probably all of the above.

Adrean Arlott wrote an article back in May 2013 in which he touched on this issue in a broad sense within the United States:

Compulsory Diversity News, ‘Save us Jebus!’, 18 May 2013:

I have been debating Christianity’s lack of virtues today. I ask you this: Does Christianity do more to help or hurt White people? If we consider anti-racist to be code word for anti-White, then I vote it hurts White people.

Orthodox Church: (Source)
...we reject phyletism, that is racial discrimination and nationalistic contention, enmities and discord in the Church of Christ as being contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the sacred canons of our holy Fathers, who support the holy Church and adorn the whole of the Christian life, leading to divine Godliness.

Catholic Church: (Source)
We begin with three facts. First, racism exists here; it is part of the American landscape. Second, racism is completely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Third, all baptized Catholics have a moral obligation to work toward the elimination of racism.

Episcopal Church: (Source)
Racism is totally inconsistent with the Gospel, therefore, must be confronted and eradicated. Basing its message on the baptismal covenant, the Bishops invited all baptized Christians to enter into a new covenant to fight racism and, “proclaim the vision of God’s new creation in which the dignity of every human being is honored.”

Baptist Church: (Source)
“We are all saddened when any sin, including the sin of racism, rears its head,” said Southern Baptist Convention spokesman Sing Oldham. “Part of our gospel is that we are being redeemed. We are flawed, failed creatures and redemption is a process.”

Westboro Baptist Church (Source)
...the Scripture doesn’t support racism. God never says “thou shalt not be black.” However, He does say, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22).

Mormon Church: (Source)
“The church’s position is clear,” LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy said. “We believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the church. We do not tolerate racism in any form. For a time in the church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent,” Purdy said. “It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”

Lutheran Church: (Source)
Racism is one of the most destructive sins in today’s world. It refuses to honor God’s mighty acts in creation, redemption, and sanctification. Racism simply does not trust the gospel. It builds on human pride and prejudice, abusing power for selfish advantage. Racism dishonors God, neighbor, and self. It rejects the meaning in God’s becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ, because in rejecting another person one rejects Jesus Christ.

Presbyterian Church: (Source)
The Dismantling Racism and Privilege Ministry Team assists the presbytery in its commitment to dismantle racism and privilege. Its purpose is to increase awareness and work toward the eradication of intentional and unintentional racism and privilege at critical decision points in the life of the presbytery, and to assist sessions and congregations in dismantling racism and privilege among our church constituency.

Methodist Church: (Source)
At the beginning of the 21st century, the United Methodist Church is focusing on racism and promoting diversity with more vigor than ever. It is actively promoting more inclusiveness and diversity in its institutions and leadership. One of its 14 churchwide agencies, the Commission on Religion and Race, focuses on those issues, and caucuses such as Black Methodists for Church Renewal and Methodists Associated Representing the Cause of Hispanic Americans also keep them in front of the church. Through programs such as Strengthening the Black Church for the 21st Century, the National Plan for Hispanic Ministries, the Council on Korean-American Ministries and the Native American Comprehensive Plan, the denomination is building up racial-ethnic congregations.

Pretty interesting, Adrean Arlott had done a good service to his readers when he pointed that out to them.

The fact that Arlott has drawn attention to this in the past, should provide even more of a context to how well-known and well-understood it is to ethno-nationalists, that Christian churches are not capable of being allies of ethno-nationalists and never will be. Even the most cynical political calculations could not bring anyone to the conclusion that organised Christianity could be utilised in the defence of anyone’s ethnic genetic interests (EGI).

It’s so bad in fact, that the Christian churches promote not only white genocide—not even metaphorically but literally—but also for the rest of the planet they offer nothing other than genocide either.

For example, plenty of church bodies espouse the position of mass mestizaje for Central Americans, thus advocating the continuation of the genocide against the native peoples of the Americas.

Here’s one example of that:

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ‘Ethnic Specific and Multicultural Ministries - Latino’: (emphasis added)
We are a community that confesses its origin and identity in the creative, redemptive and sanctifying work of God. The great diversity that characterizes us is a process of continual biological and cultural “mestizaje,” and our unity is in Jesus Christ, who gathers us around word and water, wine and bread.

Truly mindblowing.

So really, in what world would anyone think that ethnic advocacy from ‘a Christian perspective’ could ever be possible? In what retarded world is ‘cultural Christianity’—which is to say, the idea of a political alliance between Christianity and ethno-nationalism—even a thing that could be worth considering for more than five seconds? It’s just completely ridiculous.

The real and actually-existing physical manifestation of Christianity is one which is intrinsically opposed to the existence of pretty much everyone’s ethnic groups. It’s not that Christianity somehow acquired an ethnicity-destroying agenda after the year 1968. It was already doing that from the start, it’s just that the ‘anti-racist’ cultural phenomenon that manifested in the west after 1968 offered Christianity the ability to express its full ‘anti-racist’ potential while uninhibited by secular interference.

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.

From Morgoth’s Review, “Easy Jet Breaks The Cycle of Life”, Oct. 20, 2015:

I recently happened to catch this Easy Jet commercial, the budget airline is celebrating 20 years of no frills travel and dubiously exploiting aviation legal loopholes to provide the masses with cheap flights and holidays. The advert deploys a clever metaphorical trick by using a ferris wheel to depict the wheels of time turning.

A handsome young white man and woman jump aboard, awkward, hesitant, they fall in love, the years pass. We witness their hairstyles and clothes change as they evolve from teenage dorks into their 20’s. The woman shows a bump, she’s pregnant, and soon our happy couple are joined by a lovely little white daughter. Mum and dad go through life’s changes, stressed, responsible, doting, dad appears with a neck injury, they’ve celebrated their first holiday. Our lovely little girl likewise grows, and the wheel of life goes round and round, as the years pass by. Sitting in between mum and dad our cherub progresses from baby to infant to pouting teenager.

It is the circle of life.

For countless generations this cycle of love and birth and death has repeated itself, the European genome is pass on down through the eons by white men and women, from the times which forged us, scratching out a living on tundra and ice fields, to masters of technology and civilization. Onward through time and entropy, the cycle repeats. Eventually the time has come for our little girl in the Easy Jet advert to leave the comfort of the ferris wheel seat between mum and dad and plant her family. The wheel turns yet again and this time our little angel is gone, and an older mum and dad sit alone once again. But wait, another turn of the ferris wheel, she’s back, sitting alone. Now comes the time for her to find her soul mate and life partner.

[...] It’s the offhanded manner in which these adverts endorse our dissolution which hurts the most.