[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
“Ex-Mercenary CEO Erik Prince Admits To Trump Tower Meet With Don Jr., Saudi Emissary”
9 Mar 2019: Erik Prince, former head of mercenary business Blackwater, revealed in a bombshell interview Friday that he attended a meeting in Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. and a representative of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to discuss “Iran policy” during the presidential campaign.
The interview marked the first time Prince has publicly acknowledged such a meeting. Prince said in congressional testimony in 2017 that he had no “official” or “unofficial” role in the campaign — other than a “yard sign” and writing “papers” — according to the transcript of his testimony before the House intelligence committee. Nor did he mention the meeting in his testimony, according to transcripts.
The New York Times reported last year that Prince organized the 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump’s eldest son and Lebanese-American businessman George Nader. Nader revealed at the meeting that the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia wanted to aid Trump in his bid for the presidency, according to the newspaper.
The meeting also reportedly included now-top White House aide Stephen Miller and Israeli social media expert Joel Zamel.
The August meeting is yet another secret huddle with a representative of foreign governments that may have provided illegal international aid to sway the American election. Just months earlier Donald Jr. and the president’s son-in-law and now senior White House aide Jared Kushner met at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer connected to the Kremlin.
Prince, brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, acknowledged the meeting in an on-camera interview on Al Jazeera’s “Head to Head” aired Friday (above).
Asked by host Mehdi Hasan why he didn’t reveal the meeting in his congressional testimony, Prince insisted he had. When his actual response was read back to him, he suggested the transcript was “wrong,” drawing titters from the interview audience.
He later also insisted that “not all of the discussion that day was transcribed.”
Head to Head@AJHeadtoHead
Erik Prince responds that the U.S. Congress “got the transcript wrong” when asked why he didn’t tell the House Intel Committee about an Aug 2016 meeting he attended at Trump Tower. @Mehdirhasan goes ‘head to head’ with Erik Prince NOW @AJEnglish.
9:25 PM - Mar 8, 2019
A lawyer for Trump’s son confirmed to the Times after its story that “prior to the 2016 election, Donald Trump Jr. recalls a meeting with Erik Prince, George Nader and another individual who may be Joel Zamel.”
The Trump administration later harshly cracked down on Iran, terminating American participation in the international nuclear pact with the nation over the strenuous objections of Europe and Iran — and pleasing the Saudis and gulf allies.
The existence of the Trump Tower meeting — and what may have been discussed or promised — raises questions about the president’s confounding lack of action against Saudi Arabia after the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which American intelligence officials determined was ordered by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Kushner met with the crown prince and other officials in Saudi Arabia earlier this week. Against all protocol, American embassy staffers told The Daily Beast that they were shut out of meetings and were not provided details of what had been discussed. The private huddles followed revelations that the president ordered Kushner to be given top-level security clearance over the objections of the FBI.
Hasan also challenged Prince’s description of Iraqis in his memoir as “barbarians.” Prince responded that he had no problem calling terrorists barbarians. But Hasan pointed out Prince’s team had not been sent to “liberate” terrorists but Iraqi civilians.
I asked Blackwater founder Erik Prince about calling Iraqis “barbarians” and about the murder & manslaughter that happened on his watch in Iraq.
You should really listen to his replies. (Watch the whole @AJHeadtoHead with him this Friday on @AJEnglish)
Blackwater employees opened fire in a crowded square in Baghdad in 2007, killing 17 Iraqi civilians and seriously wounding 20 others. Three guards were convicted in 2014 of 14 manslaughter charges, and another of murder in an American court.
I was deeply saddened to learn today of the death of French New Right philosopher and polemicist Guillaume Faye after a battle with cancer. Faye had been sick for some time, but he was so focused on writing what will now be his last book that he postponed seeing a doctor until it was complete. When he finally sought medical attention, he was diagnosed with stage four cancer. There is no stage five. Guillaume Faye gave his life for his work, and his work for Europe.
Faye, like New Rightists and White Nationalists in European societies around the globe, was motivated by a sense of danger: the reigning system — liberal, democratic, capitalist, egalitarian, globalist — has set the white race in all of its homelands on the path to extinction through declining birthrates and race replacement through immigration and miscegenation. If we are to survive, we must understand this system, critique it, and frame an alternative that will secure the survival and flourishing of our race. Then we need to figure out how we can actually implement these ideas.
I like Faye’s approach for a number of reasons.
First, Faye thinks big. He wants to take all of Europe back for Europeans. I completely agree with this aim. Furthermore, to secure the existence of Europe against the other races and power blocs, Faye envisions the creation of a vast “Eurosiberian” Imperium, stretching from Iceland to the Pacific, with a federated system of government and an autarkic economy. He believes that only such an imperium will be equal to the challenges posed by the other races in a world of burgeoning populations and shrinking resources. As I argue in my essay “Grandiose Nationalism,” I think that such ideas are neither necessary nor practical and they entail dangers of their own. But nobody can fault them for visionary boldness.
Second, Faye thinks racially. His answer to the question “Who are we?” is ultimately racial, not cultural, religious, or subracial: white people are a vast, extended family descending from the original inhabitants of Europe after the last Ice Age. There are, of course, cultural and subracial identities that are also worth preserving within a federated imperium, but not at the expense of the greater racial whole.
Third, Faye is not a Luddite, primitivist, or Hobbit. He values our heritage, but he is attracted less to external social and cultural forms than to the vital drives that created them and express themselves in them. He also wishes to do justice to European man’s Faustian drive toward exploration, adventure, science, and technology. His “archeofuturism” seeks to fuse vital, archaic, biologically-based values with modern science and technology.
Fourth, Faye turns the idea of collapse into something more than a deus ex machina, a kind of Rapture for racists. We know a priori that an unsustainable system cannot be sustained forever and that some sort of collapse is inevitable. But Faye provides a detailed and systematic and crushingly convincing analysis of how the present system may well expire from a convergence of catastrophes. Of course, we need to be ready when the collapse comes. We need a clear metapolitical framework and an organized, racially conscious community to step into the breach, or when the present system collapses, it will simply be replaced with a rebranded form of the same ethnocidal regime.
Fifth, Faye is a strong critic of Christianity as the primary fount of the moral universalism, egalitarianism, and individualism that are at the root of our decline.
The only really fundamental disagreement I have with Faye was on the Jewish question. His views are closer to those of Jared Taylor, whereas mine are closer to those of Kevin MacDonald.
I only met Faye once, at the 2006 American Renaissance conference, where we had a couple of enjoyable conversations. We corresponded occasionally before and after that meeting. One of my treasured possessions is a copy of Faye’s first book, Le Système à tuer les peuples (Copernic, 1981), which he had given to Savitri Devi. Unfortunately, he was never able to locate his brief correspondence with Savitri. Perhaps it will come to light in his papers, which should be carefully preserved. If European man has a future, it will be due in no small part to Faye’s works. He belongs to history now, and future European generations will look dimly upon us if we fail to conserve and carry on his legacy.
Counter-Currents will publish several memorial tributes to Faye in the coming days. In the meantime, I wish simply to draw your attention to many pieces by and about Faye at Counter-Currents.
By Guillaume Faye:
“Call to Young Europeans,” trans. Greg Johnson (Translations: Czech, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish)
“The Cause of the Peoples?,” trans. Michael O’Meara
“The Conquest of Europe Begins,” trans. Guillaume Durocher
“Cosmopolis: The West as Nowhere,” trans. Greg Johnson
“From Dusk to Dawn,” trans. Michael O’Meara
“The Essence of Archaism,” trans. Irmin Vinson
“The Geopolitics of Ethnopolitics: The Concept of Eurosiberia,” trans. Greg Johnson
“Guillaume Faye on Nietzsche,” trans. Greg Johnson (Czech translation here)
“The Intentional Genocide of European Peoples?,” trans. Greg Johnson (Spanish trans. here)
Interview on Dominique Venner, trans. Greg Johnson (Spanish trans.)
Interview with Guillaume Faye
“The Islamic Conquest of Europe,” trans. Irmin Vinson
“Islamism is Less Dangerous than Islam,” trans. Greg Johnson
“Jihadist Carnage in Paris,” Part 1 (Spanish trans.), Part 2, trans. Greg Johnson
“The Lesson of Carl Schmitt,” with Robert Steuckers, trans. Greg Johnson
“Macron: Artifact and Puppet,” trans. Guillaume Durocher
“Mars and Hephaestus: The Return of History,” trans. Greg Johnson (Russian translation here)
“The Migratory Invasion,” Part 1 (Spanish trans.), Part 2 (Spanish trans.), Part 3 (Spanish trans,), trans. Greg Johnson
“On the Essence of War,” trans. Greg Johnson
“On the Russian Annexation of Crimea,” trans. Greg Johnson (Czech trans.)
“People” (from Why We Fight)
“State and Society,” trans. Greg Johnson
“Ten Untimely Ideas,” trans. Michael O’Meara
“Traditionalism: This is the Enemy!,” trans. Greg Johnson
“Tribute to Dominique Venner,” trans. Greg Johnson (Translations Czech, Greek, Spanish)
“Trump: Revolution or Simulacrum?” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, trans. Guillaume Durocher
“Ukraine: Understanding the Russian Position,” trans. Greg Johnson
About Guillaume Faye:
Francis Alexander, “Toward Euro-Siberia” (Portuguese translation here)
F. Roger Devlin, “The Rectification of Names: Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight”
F. Roger Devlin, “A Serious Case: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
Jack Donovan, “‘Corporatism’ or Mercantilism?”
Ricardo Duchesne, “The European New Right and its Animus Against Western Civ”
Georges Feltin-Tracol, “Back to the Future: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
Andrew Hamilton, “Pan-Nationalism”
Thomas Jackson, “Life After the Collapse: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
Greg Johnson, “Grandiose Nationalism” (Translations: French, German, Russian, Spanish)
Greg Johnson, “Project Septentrion: The Last Line of Defense” (French originals here)
Greg Johnson, “Review of Michael O’Meara’s Guillaume Faye and the Battle of Europe” (Czech translation here)
Greg Johnson, “Theory and Practice” (Translations: French, Polish)
Julian Langness, “Desired Storms: Guillaume Faye’s The Colonisation of Europe”
Robert Lind, “A Field Day for the Titanic Pessimist: A Review of Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism 2.0”
Michael O’Meara, “Europe’s Enemy: Islam or America? Guillaume Faye’s Le coup d’Etat mondial”
Michael O’Meara, Foreword to Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism
Michael O’Meara, “Guillaume Faye and the Jews”
Michael O’Meara, “The New Jewish Question of Guillaume Faye”
Michael O’Meara, “Preparing for World War III: Guillaume Faye’s Avant-Guerre”
Michael O’Meara, “Sex and Derailment: Guillaume Faye’s Sexe et Devoiement”
Michael O’Meara, “The Transitional Program: Guillaume Faye’s Mon Programme”
Michael O’Meara, “The Widening Gyre: Guillaume Corvus’ La convergence des catastrophes”
Christopher Pankhurst, “Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism 2.0”
Christopher Pankhurst, “Guillaume Faye’s Sex and Deviance”
Michael Walker, “Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 07 March 2019 12:28.
Visigrad Post, “The Hungarian Government’s Offensive Campaign for the European Elections”, 4 Mar 2019:
By the editors of the Visegrád Post
Hungary – A new campaign by the government against Soros and Juncker; rising criticism in the EPP against Fidesz; and looking ahead to the local Hungarian elections
By undertaking a new billboard campaign against well-known financier George Soros, but also the current President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker (of the European People’s Party [EPP], Christian Democrat), Viktor Orbán’s administration was not afraid to anger either Brussels or Fidesz’s own partners in the EPP – of which they are still a member – three months before the European elections, despite growing criticism.
“Soros – Juncker – You also have the right to know what Brussels is preparing! They want to impose mandatory migrant quotas. They want to weaken border protection in the Member States. They want to make immigration easier by issuing visas to migrants.” Budapest, February 2019. Picture: Visegrád Post
A break between Fidesz and the EPP?
The poor relations between Orbán and Juncker are nothing new. We can remember the “friendly” slap Juncker gave Orbán during a European summit in 2015, at the height of the migration crisis. This gesture was a rare inelegance – even if occurring after an enjoyable champagne lunch – on such a high political level.
Orbán, always a wise strategist, is aware of his strengths and weaknesses. He’s used to calmly facing unpleasant situations, waiting for the right moment to counterattack later. This is how he operates on both the national and international levels.
Already in July 2018, the Hungarian Prime Minister made no secret of the fact that he is glad that the European Commission’s current term, under Mr. Juncker’s leadership, is ending: “The European elite has failed, and the European Commission is the symbol of that failure. This is the bad news. The good news is that the European Commission’s days are numbered. And I have counted them: it has some three hundred days left before its mandate expires.”
During the vote on the Sargentini report in September 2018, when the European Parliament voted to sanction Hungary for its supposed violation of the “rule of law,” the break between a large number of the EPP’s representatives and those of Fidesz was readily apparent. Among the EP’s representatives, the vote went as follows:
114 in favor
57 against (including the 12 Fidesz MEPs)
28 abstentions
20 absentees
Among the 114 MEPs who voted in favor of the Sargentini report, one can find Manfred Weber of Germany, who was chosen – with Fidesz’s support – in November 2018 to be the EPP’s candidate to succeed Juncker as President of the European Commission. After the vote, Mr. Juncker declared that he regarded Fidesz’s membership in the EPP as a problem.
Other leading figures of the EPP, who were previously favorable towards Fidesz, might now turn against it. For example, Joseph Daul, the EPP’s President, was once a defender of Orbán’s; but recently, for the first time, Daul publicly criticized him and the anti-Juncker billboard campaign in a tweet:
Other EPP representatives likewise distanced themselves from the new Hungarian campaign. Unsurprisingly, Austria’s Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, is among them. The MEPs of his party, the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), voted in favor of the Sargentini report. Despite the populist rhetoric which brought him to power, the young Austrian Chancellor remains strongly linked to the Soros networks. He recently welcomed Mr. Soros to Vienna to discuss the move of Soros’ university, Central European University, from Budapest to Vienna following pressure from Fidesz. Kurz also didn’t hesitate to distance himself from Johann Gudenus, the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party’s (FPÖ) parliamentary bloc, when he criticized Soros, despite the fact that the FPÖ is currently Kurz’s coalition partner.
Another criticism came from Juncker’s possible successor, Manfred Weber. Weber declared that with only 13 MEPs out of 751, Fidesz won’t be able to decide Europe’s future. If this merciless call back to reality seems very true, let’s mention that Fidesz doesn’t have 13 MEPS, but only 12; and also the fact that the next European Parliament will have only 705 MEPs instead of 750, due to Brexit.
Moreover, the likely weakening of the majority groups in the European Parliament (the EPP and the Socialists) in the May 2019 elections will strengthen Fidesz within the EPP. According to the polls, Fidesz might win more MEPs in the EPP (if they in fact remain in the EPP) than the French Republicans. Given the comparative demographic weight of France and Hungary (the number of MEPs each country has depends on the size of its population), this says a great deal about Fidesz’s political strength in a Europe where a lot of the Member States are facing political instability.
With its likely weakening, can the EPP get rid of Fidesz and its partners? The Visegrád Post already raised this question in a study about the possible new combinations of European parliamentary blocs following this year’s elections. At the same time, seeing the anger of a growing number of EPP members over Fidesz’s membership in their group, can this situation continue?
One thing seems clear: Fidesz won’t leave the EPP, which would only become a martyr if the bloc decided to exclude them. Thus, the coming weeks will be rife with tension within the EPP.
The other target of Fidesz’s billboard campaign: Péter Márki-Zay, as a prelude to the upcoming local elections
On the left is a quote from Péter Márki-Zay: “Brussels should have followed Soros’ propositions.” On the right is a quote from George Soros: “I see myself as a kind of God.”
Soros and Juncker are not the only targets of this billboard campaign. Other Fidesz billboards appeared simultaneously, targeting the Mayor of Hódmezővásárhely, a town of 45,000 citizens in southern Hungary.
Why is this? There is no question that Fidesz will lead in the European elections in Hungary. But the issue at stake is not only for Fidesz to gain as many MEPs as possible in order to influence European politics, but also to influence the balance of power domestically prior to Hungary’s local elections in October 2019. In order to retain its rule over the majority of Hungary’s cities, towns, and counties, Fidesz has a vested interest in striking a blow in the European elections as well.
The turnout in the European elections is usually low, so the primary task of the political parties is to mobilize their core voters better than the other parties can do. This might allow Fidesz to obtain an even better result than it did during the Hungarian national election in April 2018, when they received 49% of the votes.
The local elections will also be a fresh opportunity for the opposition parties to achieve what they were unable to accomplish during last year’s national election: coordinating all the Left-liberal parties (the MSZP, DK, and Párbeszéd) with Jobbik (formerly of the radical-Right but nowadays a pro-EU and center-Right party, which is still the primary opposition). This strategy was launched in February 2018 during a local mayoral by-election in Hódmezővásárhely, which led to the victory of Péter Márki-Zay – an independent candidate who was supported by all the opposition parties – against the Fidesz candidate.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 06 March 2019 05:39.
Voice of Europe, “Marine Le Pen to be prosecuted for anti-ISIS tweets”, 4 Mar 2019:
Prosecutors have called for French right-wing leader Marine Le Pen to be tried for tweeting pictures of atrocities committed by the Islamic State group, judicial sources said.
Le Pen shared the gruesome images in December 2015, a few weeks after ISIS jihadists killed 130 people in attacks in Paris – and after a French journalist drew a comparison between the jihadist group and her party. Her move sparked widespread condemnation in France.
One of the pictures showed the body of James Foley, an American journalist beheaded by the Sunni extremists. Another showed a man in an orange jumpsuit being run over by a tank and the third showed a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage.
‘Daesh is this!’ Le Pen wrote in a caption, using an Arabic acronym for ISIS.
She is facing a possible three year jail term and a fine of 75,000 euro’s if an investigating magistrate decides a trial should take place for ‘circulating violent pictures liable to bee seen by children’.
Prosecutors demanded that another member of her National Rally party, Gilbert Collard, also be tried on similar charges.
Le Pen, who lost to Emmanuel Macron in the 2017 presidential elections, was stripped of her parliamentary immunity over the pictures and thereafter charged with circulating violent messages.
Last year, she expressed outrage after the investigative magistrate called for her to undergo psychiatric tests in connection with her tweeting.
She has denounced the case against her as a violation of her freedom of expression.
Central Europe, Visegrad Group – Although the number of illegal immigrants flooding to Europe has been significantly reduced since the crisis of 2015, when about one million migrants made their way north through the Balkans in just a few months, this issue remains unresolved, and many Africans and Middle Easterners continue to arrive illegally in the European Union each year. The permanent compulsory reallocation scheme formerly advocated by the European Commission and by many EU countries including Germany, France, Italy and Greece, but opposed by others, not least by the Visegrád Four, was formally abandoned in 2018, although not all have given up on the idea. In Italy, the League’s coalition partner the 5-Star Movement (M5S) and its leader Luigi Di Maio still demand that illegal immigrants should be reallocated to other EU countries, as does Greece’s Syriza-led leftist government under Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. In the last days of January 2019, Spanish socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez reacted to Italy’s refusal to open its ports to an NGO vessel with 47 African men on board by renewing calls for financial sanctions against countries that do not take their share of illegal immigrants. Spain’s government intends to side with France and Germany to have European funds withheld from countries like Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary until they agree to open their borders to asylum seekers (most illegal immigrants apply for asylum in order to avoid deportation).
As a matter of fact, under its new socialist minority government supported by the far left (Podemos) and regional nationalists, Spain has become, since Sánchez took office in early June 2018, the main gateway for illegal immigration to the EU. This is partly due to signals sent from the very beginning by Spain’s new government, such as the welcoming in the port of Valencia of the 600+ immigrants rescued by the Aquarius, the announcement that razor wire would be removed from border fences in Ceuta and Melilla, and the decision to restore free medical care for illegal residents. The second factor which led to this new situation was of course the formation in Italy of a new coalition government by the M5S and the League, with the League’s leader Matteo Salvini becoming Italy’s interior minister and taking the reins of Rome’s immigration policy. That meant, as the League had promised voters, that Italy would now close its ports to NGO vessels carrying illegal immigrants from the coast of Libya, and also to illegal immigrants rescued by navy ships taking part in Operation European Union Naval Force Mediterranean (EU NAVFOR Med, also known as Operation Sophia). Under the terms of that joint operation, all migrants rescued at sea were to be taken to Italy. With Italy now requesting that migrants rescued by Operation Sophia should be taken to the country of origin of each rescuing ship, some countries are now withdrawing from the operation, as is the case with Germany, which will not replace its frigate after it ends its current mission in early February.
The consequences of Spain’s taking a more pro-immigrant stance while Italy was doing just the opposite can be seen in statistics. While the overall number of illegal immigrants who made it across the Mediterranean in 2018 (135,798) was significantly lower than in 2017 (184,374), the figure increased very significantly on the Western Mediterranean route from Morocco to Spain: from 23,143 in 2017 to 56,644 in 2018, plus some 6,800 illegal migrants who forced their way into the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla on Morocco’s northern border. At the same time, the number of arrivals in Italy – via the Central Mediterranean route – fell from 118,912 in 2017 to 23,276 in 2018. On the Eastern Mediterranean route through Turkey and Greece to the Balkans, the number of illegal immigrants rose in 2018, to 55,878 from 42,319 in the previous year, reflecting the shortcomings of the EU–Turkey agreement.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 02 March 2019 09:27.
The Political Vocation Of Romania
Visigrad Post, 22 Feb By Thibaud Cassel.
Part 1/3 here! – Part 2/3 here! – 3/3 – Part 3: Romania on the wire – The Celebration of the centenary of modern Romania on December 1, 2019.
The “evil wind” coming from the East, denounced by the French President, could well sweep away the – already flaky – Liberal varnish of Romania, and even weaken its grip on the West of the continent. In a context of profound political recomposition, what is the place for an exceptional country, both Latin and Eastern at the same time, of 20 million inhabitants?
The “evil wind” coming from the East, denounced by the French President, could well sweep away the – already flaky – Liberal varnish of Romania, and even weaken its grip on the West of the continent. In a context of profound political recomposition, what is the place for an exceptional country, both Latin and Eastern at the same time, of 20 million inhabitants?
Cross-cultural season and zeitgeist
Romania has been cultivating an interested friendship with France since her emergence as a modern nation. This echoes today through the fact that the two countries were organizing on the occasion of the centenary of 1918 a “cross-cultural season”, made of temporary exhibitions from one end of the continent to the other. This event was inaugurated in Paris on November 27, by the Romanian and French Presidents, Klaus Johannis and Emmanuel Macron. This was a unmissable opportunity to measure the deep gap that separates the instigator of the Springtime of the Peoples in 1848 from the variegated hexagon of “La République en Marche !” (“The Republic on the move!”, Emmanuel Macron’s party, Ed.); but also an opportunity to gauge what Romania can bring to a Europe in end-of-cycle.
Romania and the West
On November 27, Klaus Johannis stuck himself to celebrate “the common history and privileged relationship between France and Romania”, while the French president gratified the assistance with his complex thinking, alternating commonplaces and absurdities. “Culture is one of the cements of our Europe,” he said in the post-cultural setting of the Georges Pompidou Museum, before adding that “the language of Europe is translation”. The event was not about cultural soft power, for which France is admirably endowed, but was a Liberal-Libertarian mantra least likely to cultivate a real Franco-Romanian fraternity. When a country stops having some esteem, regardless how peripheral it may be, one can only anticipate that it will soon cease to fear; Emmanuel Macron’s France is giving way to more determined actors.
Take advantage of the American-German tussle?
The timid reorientation at work for two years in Romanian politics is to find the sense of national interest: if “America first”, then “Romania first” too. We have recently seen the US government take up the cause for the current Romanian government, while Germany supports the opposition. These frictions between two major Western powers offer unexpected room for maneuver in Bucharest. The country is in the German economic orb, but above all in the American strategic orb: not only considering her border situation with Ukraine and Moldova but also in the Black Sea with the uncertain evolution of Turkey. But today Romania has nothing to lose, or at least not much anymore to give up. To the point that the taxation of banks and foreign multinationals, the refusal of poor quality products flooding its market, etc. are among the options (finally) seriously studied at the last National Council of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) in power, last December 16.
Romania and Visegrad
The repositioning of Romania within the West can be compared to that of Poland and other central European countries: Americanophiles, though firmly anchored to the German economy. The countries of former Eastern Europe must cooperate in order to matter. The rallying of Romania to the dynamics of the Visegrad Group proves to be essential for the affirmation of a complete actor on the European scene, that is to say, able to follow a European agenda that is not that of Berlin, nor that of Washington.
Romania is presiding over the European Union in the first half of 2019, and it is in Sibiu that the post-Brexit European summit of May 9, 2019 will be held. This momentary passage in the first row could protect Bucharest from a too virulent ostracism.
An illiberalism coming from the Left?
The political vigor of the countries of Central Europe has re-rooted itself into populism in recent years – that is to say, into democracy. But populism needs vector to succeed. In this sense, it can not be born of an abolition of the right-left cleavage, although it must ultimately lead to it. In Romania, it is the PSD that captures popular aspirations and intends to defend “those from somewhere” against “those from nowhere”. Despite the political vicissitudes (split, fusion and change of name), the PSD remains the main heir to the Communist Party of Nicolae Ceausescu. The “illiberal” turning point in Romania is therefore not initiated, as in Hungary and Poland, by the right. This evolution rests largely on the shoulders of Liviu Dragnea. Deputy Prime Minister from December 2012 to December 2014 and President of the House of Representatives since December 2016, he has been holding even more power from the presidency of the PSD he has been assuming since the summer of 2015.
Romanian pragmatism at work
The Romanian PSD, an important member of the Party of European Socialists (PES), can play a significant role: to undermine Liberalism from the Left as Orban’s Hungary scuttle it from the Right. The flair of the Romanians for the opportune end of reigns could be sensitive to the ever more feverish climate in the run-up to the European elections of May 2019. The stake for the Romanian Left? Do not run with the Titanic of the Liberal Left, turn its back on a derisory and disqualified ideology and rely on the Romanian electorate, tired of the quasi-colonial exploitation of the country. To apply Nietzsche’s pitiless maxim: “That which is ready to fall, shall ye also push!”. This Byzantine versatility, Romania gets it wonderfully.
Towards an alternative Left-wing force in Europe?
The Romanian situation is not unique. This is the case in several peripheral European countries: in Portugal, in Denmark in another way and of course in the CEECs. We can also associate the movement Aufstehen, launched by the German Sarah Wagenknecht inside Die Linke. But the surest partner of this trend, and its forerunner, is no doubt the 5-Stars Movement (M5S) in Italy. Gathered outside the Socialist (PES) and Leftist (GUE) groups at European level, these political forces would play a necessary role in drying up the reserves that the Liberal center always finds on its left to free a majority. If such a platform would emerge in the context of the European elections, no doubt that it would strengthen up during the 2019-2024 term of office of members of the radical Left that current events disillusioned. The case of Djordje Kuzmanovic provides an exemplary case: this spokesman of “Unsubmissive France” has resigned to protest the Leftist and Communitarian drift of the party, unable in his eyes to get out of the Liberal net. Fortunately, European policy opens the field to new perspectives.
Dave Cameron has gone off to write his memoirs, leaving our country in a state of chaos. He was one of the worst prime ministers in British history. He picked a fight with the EU to appease the right wing of the Tory Party, but he got nowhere with Brussels so he called a referendum. ‘The People’, led by the popular press and pissed-off by ten years of austerity, voted to leave the EU, but there was no plan for such a decision and after years of argument we are due to leave the EU on 31st March unless Brexit is delayed or abandoned.
Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg predict a Brexit boom but the Governor of the Bank of England is less optimistic, and to add to the confusion the our withdrawal is led by Theresa May who voted to remain in the EU.
Leaving the EU is a momentous decision but whatever happens, we will still have an unbalanced economy, a divided society, a housing crisis, a staggering national debt, cash-strapped armed forces, a National Health Service dependant on foreign labour, and an educational system that impoverishes students. None of these problems will be helped by Brexit, they all require the sort of political action that our politicians are incapable of delivering.
Impossible Dreams?
Fascism today is just a political insult but in 1922 it was a populist revolution that swept Benito Mussolini to power in Italy. At first, the regime was content to govern but by the time of the Italian Social Republic, it had developed a full range of progressive policies; a guaranteed minimum wage,, workers’ partnership, free education, and social security from the cradle to the grave. These ideals were enshrined in the constitution of the RSI. Unfortunately, by then it was too late.
The post-war Labour government introduced the National Health Service but by the time of the Korean War, it dropped some services to save money. That’s why opticians, chiropodists, and most dentists are outside of the system. The present Tory government loudly proclaims its support for the NHS but suspicions remain that they want to sell it off to the private health care providers and insurance companies. At present, the NHS is protected by legislation but the Tory desire for a trade deal with the United States could open the door to American competition.
The Welfare State costs money that the Tories would rather spend on royal weddings, aircraft carriers and nuclear missiles. But the rise in homelessness and the use of food banks is a national disgrace. The main parties have acknowledged the problem but at the moment they are preoccupied with Brexit. Perhaps the splits now tearing the old parties apart are the start of a realignment of politics. We can only hope so because social justice is not an impossible dream.
Donald Trump equates health care with Communism. He thinks that everybody should pay for their own doctors. But the sick and the unemployed can’t afford expensive medical insurance. As fair-minded Europeans, we must reject Trump’s selfishness and defend our NHS.
Oil
It is fashionable to criticise the banks but the oil companies are just as bad. In his autobiography, ‘Pantaraxia’, Nubar Gulbenkian tells how his oil billionaire father took him to lunch in New York while he was on holiday. The first day they were treated royally, and as they left the restaurant Calouste told his son, “I’ve got a million dollars in that bank.” The second day was just as good and as they left daddy told him that he had a million dollars in that bank. And so it went on with all the major American banks. On the last day, after a sumptuous lunch his father said nothing, so Nulbar asked him: “how much have you got in their bank daddy?”, he replied: “not a cent, I owe them a million dollars.”
Debtors without collateral are written off but those with assets are treated as valued customers. And its the same with countries. Venezuela is bankrupt and its people are starving but they are sitting on one of the world’s biggest oilfields. It’s only a matter of time before a consortium of banks and oil companies takes over the country. Venezuela tried to install a socialist system under Hugo Chavez but the experiment was ruined by the collapse of oil prices.
But Venezuela is not the first state to be taken over by the oil companies. Britain controlled Iran through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and when prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh (pictured) tried to nationalise it in 1953 he was ousted in a coup mounted by the CIA. The Shah was installed as a Western puppet but when he showed signs of independence in 1979, he was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini who had been given refuge by France. Currently, Iran is being strangled by American sanctions.
President Trump has reneged on his agreement to lift sanctions against Iran in return for them scrapping nuclear weapons. Iran is no threat to the US but her armed forces are engaged in Syria and Yemen.
Calouste Gulbenkian was known as Mr Ten Percent because creamed-off 10% of all the oil traded in the British Empire. Today, more countries are producing oil and Britain and America no longer dominate the market. Oil will run out one day but the producers are already investing in alternative energy. People all over the world think that their fates are decided by the illiterate crosses they put on ballot papers, but the important decisions are made in the boardrooms of the big oil corporations.
Oil dominates the economies of the Western nations and influences their foreign policies. Russia is accused of being too authoritarian and aggressive but her real crime is to be a major oil producer.
Jimmy Miller
I first met my friend Jimmy Miller in 1983 when I moved back to South London. He was living in a council flat awarded to him by Lambeth Council. But a highly organised gang of middle-class squatters was occupying all the vacant flats in the area and forcing out the working-class tenants. They only wanted their own kind to be housed. Jimmy was having none of that and he defended himself vigorously, only to be arrested and evicted for his bravery.
Jimmy was born in Liverpool in the Thirties. I don’t know exactly how old he was but he was older than me. He served in the Royal Corps of Signals and he took part in the defence of Kuwait in 1961. General Qasim of Iraq massed his forces on the Kuwaiti border ready to invade The British rushed 7,000 troops to Kuwait and broadcast bogus messages indicating a massive military build-up. Qasim fell for the deception and promptly withdrew his forces.
After the army Jimmy worked as a painter at the giant Cammell Laird shipyard. There he was elected as a shop steward representing the painters. Most of the union officials were communists who put up posters of Marx and Lenin on their office walls. Not to be outdone Jimmy put up a poster of Adolf Hitler and defied anyone to touch it.
After leaving Liverpool, he worked all over the country renovating Woolworth’s stores and eventually got a job as a maintenance man at Bon Marche in Brixton. For all his National Socialist convictions Jimmy got on well with the West Indian community. He always used to say that its the politicians who are to blame not the immigrants.
He moved back to Liverpool when he retired but he always sent me a Christmas card and a calendar. He was suffering from Parkinson’s and his handwriting grew more erratic each year, but this year his package did not arrive at all and I guess that he has passed away.
Jimmy Miller was a brave, intelligent, and generous man. He was raised as a Catholic but in later life, he was attracted to the Salvation Army. And that’s how I picture him, to the words of the anthem, “Onward Christian Soldiers marching on to war.”
Assassination
Government agents and terrorists regularly kill each other. Recent murders by the Russians and the Saudis have been roundly condemned by the West but we have a long and distinguished history of political assassination. Britain’s most famous hit happened on 4th June 1942 when two Special Operations Executive officers, Josef Cabcik and Jan Kubis, shot dead Richard Heydrich the Deputy Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. Nazi reprisals were expected but the British government did not know that the town of Lidice would be destroyed together with thousands of civilians.
The Nazi reaction was as cruel as the British treatment of dissidents in India. In April 1919, following days of rioting in which four Europeans were killed, Brig Gen Dyer (pictured) ordered his men to open fire on an unarmed crowd of protesters, 379 were killed and 1,200 wounded. The Amritsar atrocity was more mass murder than assassination but it showed the world who was in charge of India; at least, for the next thirty years.
Throughout the Northern Ireland Troubles, IRA terrorists were shot by Protestant paramilitaries on information supplied by MI5. Sometimes the government acted in the other direction. Lenny Murphy, the Protestant terrorists known as the Shankhill Butcher, was killed because he had become an embarrassment.
Our fictitious national hero, James Bond has a licence to kill. Commander Bond 007 was an invention but his creator, Ian Fleming, was a British agent who understood how these things are done.
Our American allies shot dead Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011. American Special Forces killed him and dumped his body in the sea. His death was announced by President Obama who welcomed the death of the leader of Al-Qaeda.
It seems that bumping off political opponents is not necessarily a crime. When we kill our enemies we are fulfilling the will of the people, but when authoritarian foreign governments kill their opponents they are acting like savages.The truth is that all governments conduct under-cover operations and no individual government has the right to give lectures on good behaviour.
Mosley on Race, from “Union” May 1948
When Oswald Mosley wrote this article in 1948 it would have been possible to send back recently-arrived West Indian workers. Today things are different. We can enforce our rules of entry and deport foreign criminals but a mass round up of immigrants is out of the question.
Race is the first reality of European Unity. This unique stock of men in Europe has, in fact, produced the culture, the values and the achievements of the West. This race, in their family of Europe, has produced most things that matter on this globe. This achievement has been the result of their character, which in turn was the result of their race.
Horses go further and faster than donkeys because they are horses and not donkeys. We cannot avoid the basic facts of nature, even if we would. Nor can we drown them beneath a verbiage of words. If we are to build then surely we must build on real foundations, and I know that we do.
Therefore, I affirm the fact that the first reality and rock foundation of European Union is Race! Who are our nearest kindred? The answer is the German people. The British and the Germans are the most closely related of all European peoples. The Northern French also belong to this close circle of Race or Family and were united with the Germans under Charlemagne.
Near in blood to us, and the Germans, are the whole Northern block of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. A related stock is also the great family of the Latin nations, whose culture has adorned the illuminated pages of European history.
You cannot deny nature; you cannot create in defiance of reality.
An Alternative View - Bernard Franklyn
Since the early 1950s, every aspect of our once great country has been destroyed. Only old age pensioners in their seventies, like myself, are aware of the changes that have been made. When we are gone there will be no one left to explain what we have lost to the younger generation. I feel that we need to urge OAP’s to become vocal, but that is hard work. Still, I am going to urge more of my generation to explain the situation to their children and grandchildren. My daughter and her husband both work but are unable to keep up with the bills. In the 1950s wives didn’t work, the families were able to survive and pay all the bills on the husband’s wage. In the 1950s and ‘60s, virtually everyone could afford a mortgage so long as you were a regular saver. In 1958 a terraced house in the suburbs of London would have sold for £10,000; today it would be £500,000. The house would not be worth any more, that is how our fraudulent governments have reduced the value of money by just creating it out of thin air. Parliament is run by our enemies and has been throughout my life. The time is long overdue to find our own BRITISH candidates who have the knowledge and skills to run the country. You need no qualifications to or knowledge a prime or cabinet minister. You only have to be subservient to political Mafia that really rules our country, nay the world.
The people of Europe have no control over the EU. It is an ever growing nightmare with even more power over its people than the Soviet Union had. If the public had elected the National Front in the 1960s we wouldn’t have joined the EEC which became the EU, we could have saved what was left of our manufacturing industry, we wouldn’t have allowed the standard of education to be lowered through the introduction of the comprehensive system, there would have been no mass immigration programme, anti-British Jews wouldn’t have been appointed to the senior positions of the judiciary, proper sentencing of murderers and criminals would have continued, the drug problem would not have escalated like it has, there would be no national debt as we would have created interest free banking which the EU would never allow.
Britain was extremely successful at managing its own affairs long before the EU was thought of. We will manage again, so long as we have a government that doesn’t want to keep us tied to the United States, Israel and the EU. If you are not sure, watch RT news on channel 234 and see how often these three work in instantaneous harmony whenever they want to do something diabolical.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Nation Revisited
All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: “We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share ideas with other people.
Comments
Use the facility at the end of this blog to leave your comments and read what others have to say.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 25 February 2019 20:57.
Alain Finkielkraut being confronted by yellow-vest protesters.
“In Face of Yellow-Vest Critics, France Moves to Criminalize Anti-Zionism”—- By GUILLAUME DUROCHER, Unz Review, 24 Feb 2019:
The French Jewish intellectual Alain Finkielkraut was recently profusely insulted by yellow-vests on the margins of a demonstration. This attack has been widely-portrayed as anti-Semitic, even though the yellow-vests in question explicitly attacked Finkielkraut as a Zionist. As Damien Viguier, the anti-Zionist intellectual Alain Soral’s lawyer, observed:
Alain Finkielkraut was called “a dirty Zionist shit (a Zionist two times again and “shit” perhaps three times more), a “fascist,” a “racist (two times), and “hateful.” He was asked to leave the demonstration in direct times: “get out of here” (twice), “piss off,” “go back home to Israel!” I can see in all this insults, or defamatory comments, I would even grant a light violence, but I find no trace of a discriminatory motivation. This shows well that the words “anti-Semite” and “anti-Semitic” are used in an absolutely arbitrary manner.
It is true that “Zionist” is often used as a euphemism for “Jew.” But it is also true that many anti-Zionists are happy to befriend genuinely anti-Zionist Jews such as Gilad Atzmon (himself an associate of Soral’s). Finkielkraut was likely attacked for his values rather than his ethnicity.
This subtlety did not prevent the incident from triggering a veritable pro-Semitic moral panic across the entire politico-media class. The media lamented the “anti-Semitic” attack on Finkielkraut and he was comforted by politicians from across the political spectrum, from the far-left to the far-right, including the bulk of prominent nationalist and identitarian figures.
Much of the foreign press (the London Times, The Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraph Agency . . .) misrepresented things further, claiming that Finkielkraut had been called a “dirty Jew.” This is a genuine example of fake news.
Then a Jewish cemetery in the Alsatian village of Quatzenheim was desecrated, with over 90 tombstones being sprayed with with swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans. One tombstone was sprayed with the words: “Elsassisches Schwarzen Wolfe,” meaning “Alsatian Black Wolves,” an Alsatian nationalist group which has been inactive since 1981 . . . Of course, a hate hoax cannot be excluded: one thinks of the recent Jussie Smollett debacle or the Israeli-American who instigated 2000 supposed anti-Semitic bomb and shooter threats over the years.
For those whom anecdotal evidence was not sufficient, the regime also trotted out the usual “statistics” about, seemingly released every year of every decade, showing a massive increase in “anti-Semitic” acts. I will only say that such statistics are dubious in general, repetitive, and obviously ethnically and politically convenient. Grand old man Jean-Marie Le Pen commented:
There is no anti-Semitism in France which would justify a mobilization of public opinion. . . . Incidentally, we’re given a figure of a 74% increase in [anti-Semitic] attacks. Compared to what? I ask that we have the list of all these attacks committed against the Jews, in such a way that we can actually tell the difference between a graffiti, a murder, a telephone call, or a schoolyard scuffle. It is true that radical Islamism is extrapolating in a sense the Israeli-Arab conflict into France. It is much more a matter of anti-Zionism than anti-Semitism.
_(1).jpg?r=1551432004)
.jpg?r=1551432315)
Alain Finkielkraut being confronted by yellow-vest protesters.