Story of Argobad contextualizes the case brought against Jez Turner

Europa, “BRITAIN’S VIGILANTE POLICE”, 11 Oct 2017:

by Mike Walsh

Britain’s most popular ethno-nationalists, supporters and members of the public, face a David and Goliath battle to protest a state-funded race-police force. Contrary to all legal precedents the Shomrim Security Group, with eighty guards, now patrols North London boroughs.

Shockingly, these armed and uniformed Jewish storm-troopers, are said to be the only ‘private army on British soil’ The patrolling race-police wear state-provided uniforms and cruise the streets in £15,000 patrol cars.

Ostensibly, the purpose of these menacing uniformed Jews, recruited from the Hasidic Jewish community in London, is to police boroughs and to act against what they describe as ‘hate crimes’. Such would include criticism of Jewish or Israeli influence. Jewish and Asian groups are trained to make arrests and detain suspects until conventional police arrive.

It is well to reflect how news of a similar ethnic-European police force being sponsored would be greeted. Imagine for a moment, 80 British nationalists, concerned at the number of hate crimes perpetrated by non-Europeans on indigenous Britons, being given special status by the London police.

Shomrim, special Jewish police specifically looking after their community.

The self-appointed nationalist volunteers are trained, equipped and provided with liveried police cars by Britain’s largest police force. Patrolling the streets of London this private force, not covered by authority or law, are tasked with identifying the perpetrators of anti-White hate criminals. Merely the suggestion would be considered preposterous. Is Britain the only country that sponsors a race-group private police force?

Jez Turner says: “It’s utter disbelief that the Jews of Stamford Hill have set up their own police force which enforces their own Talmudic law on the streets of a White British city.”

An anti-vigilante protest group, supported by members of the public, took their protest to the streets.Holding banners reading ‘police impersonation is a crime’ and surrounded by a large police escort, the group of 50 concerned residents gathered at Lea Bridge Roundabout. Speeches were made by the National Front’s Tony Martin and the party’s former organiser Martin Webster.

The massive police operation investigating this demonstration has been given the name Operation Saurus (reptile). Police officers openly admitted that it was carried out at the order of the far-left Jewish Community Security Trust (CST).

Mr Turner says, “All politicians are nothing but a bunch of puppets dancing to a Jewish tune, and the ruling regimes in the West for the last 100 years have danced to the same tune. Let’s free England from Jewish control.”

Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is set to prosecute the founder of the London Forum debating society for alleged anti-Semitism after a Jewish group mounted an unprecedented challenge to their original decision not to prosecute.

The CPS case is likely to collapse as it is based on Article 17; European Human Rights Convention that says protection is not extended to ‘those who would destroy that right’. It is unlikely that the organiser of an ad hoc debating society could be guilty of such a wacky bizarre allegation.

Why worry, lawyers will get richer, media will be enriched by anti-White propaganda, the political elite seen as tonguing the right backsides; the taxpayer pays for the repellent anti-White Carnival of Clowns.

When asked his reaction to the CPS decision to retreat under Jewish pressure, Jez Turner smiled and said: “Looks like I may be going away for a while, a free vacation at Her Majesty’s pleasure. But whatever happens, I’ll have a show trial first. And I’ll make sure that I give them a show and go down fighting!”

The mask of liberal democracy is slipping away. As anger rises over mass immigration to the West, so the authorities will be resorting to ever more desperate methods to stifle dissent. The greatest consciousness-raising resource of the last twenty years may be lost to us.

Independent, “Crown Prosecution Service to review decision not to prosecute prolific anti-Semite”, 8 Feb 2017:

Jez Turner’s case re-examined after 13-month campaign against him.

Crown Prosecution Service has agreed to review decision not to prosecute far-right activist known for making vitrolic speeches against the “Jewish world order”.

Jeremy Bedford-Turner’s case will be re-examined following a 13-month campaign.

In a July 2015 speech to an “anti-Shorim” rally on Whitehall, Jeremy Bedford-Turner said “all politicians are nothing but a bunch of puppets dancing to a Jewish tune, and the ruling regimes in the West for the last one hundred years have danced to the same tune.”

Jez Turner addresses small protest outside Whitehall July 2015

“Agobard of Lyon and The Origins of the Hostile Elite”

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D., Occidental Observer, 2 Nov 2017:

As part of the introduction to my forthcoming volume of essays, Talmud and Taboo, I’ve included an overview of key developments in the historical relationship between Jews and Europeans. During the course of this overview I emphasize the historical suppression of European responses to Jewish group behavior, an important and perennial aspect of Jewish-European interactions. This suppression/taboo, as a thing in itself, tends to be less explored and understood when compared to the attention devoted to more obvious manifestations of Jewish influence (e.g. assertive action in influencing immigration control), but consideration of it is crucial to a complete understanding of Jews as a hostile elite. A working theoretical definition of what is meant by “Jews as a hostile elite” is of course also necessary, and is taken here as the implication not only that Jews have historically been opposed/hostile to the interests of the European masses, but also that Jews have had direct access to political power, or significant levels of influence over European elites in possession of it. While writing the introduction to Talmud and Taboo I was primarily concerned with the origins of the Jewish acquisition of this power or influence in Europe, the mode of its expression, and its evolution over the course of centuries. Due to restrictions of space in the introduction to Talmud and Taboo, I want to take the opportunity here to expand on one such example.

To date, our best understanding of modern Jewish political strategies in the context of the “taboo” can be found in Chapter 6 of Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontent: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, titled “Jewish Strategies for Combatting Anti-Semitism.” One section deals with “Political Strategies for Minimizing Anti-Semitism.” MacDonald notes that Jews have been flexible strategizers in the political arena, buttressed by an IQ substantially above the Caucasian mean, and argues that the foundations for Jewish influence are wealth, education, and social status.[1] Today, Jews apply this influence in order to stifle negative discussion of their group, and at times to stifle any discussion of Jews at all. MacDonald points out that this is normally done via extensive communal support for “self-defense committees,” which are a feature of every Diaspora population. These committees invariably lobby governments, utilize and influence legal systems, produce pro-Jewish and pro-multicultural propaganda, and fund pro-Jewish candidates or initiatives. Another of their vital functions has been to monitor and expose “anti-Semites,” and to use legal systems in order to exact individual punishments, thereby making an example of individuals and thereby imposing a deterrent atmosphere on the rest of the population.

It almost goes without saying that in the modern era Jews have been very successful in making anti-Semitism a disreputable and unsavory enterprise. Perhaps more than any other shaming device, accusations of anti-Semitism can be socially and professionally devastating. Academic studies which argue that anti-Semitism has a rational and understandable basis, such as MacDonald’s work, are monitored and excluded from scholarly discourse in an unceasing effort to maintain Jewish control over narratives concerning their group and deflecting antagonism to it. A foundational idea underpinning the creation of this most modern taboo is that anti-Semitism is a personal flaw indicative or psychiatric disorder and a social aberration, epitomized by the writing of the Frankfurt School of Social Research. Despite achieving an almost monolithic position in the public mind of most European populations, it is particularly noteworthy that such conceptualizations of anti-Semitism as an irrational and inexplicable form of psychosocial illness are extremely recent, having been developed only in the last sixty years by a cast of Jewish intellectuals—particularly those at the nexus of psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School.

This reframing of European understandings of anti-Semitism has been due not only to Jewish influence in academia, the media, and the development of social policy, but also to a general ignorance among Europeans of the historical experiences of their ancestors. Europeans cannot come to terms with the issue of Jewish influence purely by confronting its contemporary manifestations – they must engage with the experiences of their forebears, and understand how and why they viewed Jews as a hostile elite.

All of these considerations led to me to one question: when and how did this “hostile elite” begin? Although Jewish influence was noted during the life of the Roman Empire, I excluded this period from my deliberations for a number of reasons. The first was that I wanted a close contextual proximity to present conditions; in other words, as a bare minimum I felt it necessary that I should find an early example of Jewish influence that still mirrored enough features of the modern experience to be broadly valid in comparison. Despite a proliferation of expatriate communities, during the Roman Empire, or at least until the sack of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70, Jews could be considered as predominantly a national people rather than a Diaspora. It could thus be argued that relations between the Roman Empire and Jewish populations could on some level be understood within the framework of traditional diplomacy and power relations.

It was only after Rome’s demolition of the Second Jewish Commonwealth in the first century that the Exilic period ushered in significantly novel forms of Jewish political activity. These political activities also became uniform, with Amichai Cohen and Stuart Cohen noting of the new Diaspora: “Notwithstanding variations dictated by vast differences of location and situation, all Jewish communities developed and refined a remarkably similar set of broad [political] strategies.”[2] The second reason is related to the first in the sense that this set of Jewish political strategies had to be present in a broad geographical area of Europe. This breadth of geographical dispersion, and the subsequent extension of Jewish interactions with European populations, only occurred after the fall of the Roman Empire. A third and final reason for omitting the period of the Roman Empire was that my precondition of close contextual proximity required that the nation states of today, at least in their prototypical form, should be broadly recognizable. Finally, the Jews of Visigothic Spain, although wealthy, powerful, and incredibly hostile, have been discounted due to their failure to establish a relationship with Visigothic elites. This failure most notably resulted in the Jews providing assistance to a replacement elite — Muslim invaders.[3]

The set of “broad political strategies” referred to above requires further elaboration. Lacking a state, and insistent on remaining apart from their host nations, Diaspora Jewish populations developed an indirect and at times highly abstract style of politics in order to advance their interests. In Jewish sources it became known as shtadtlanut (“intercession” or “petitioning”), and represented a personal and highly involved form of diplomacy or statecraft that, in the words of the Cohens, “prioritized persuasion.”[4] In the modern era we are familiar with such shtadlans as the Anti-Defamation League, and AIPAC. These bodies claim to represent all Jews, and the interests of all Jews, and do so when interacting with, interceding with, or “persuading” host nation governments or other arms of the White elite. However, the shtadlan as a large formal body or committee is a relatively modern development, and was a necessary response to the end of absolute monarchy at the beginning of the nineteenth century (and the corresponding rise of parliamentary democracy and the modern state). Prior to c.1815, Jews often pursued their interests via a small number of very wealthy and “persuasive” individual shtadlans who would form personal relationships with a king, prince, or other powerful members of the European elite. This was most pronounced during the Early Modern period when Hofjuden, or Court Jews, negotiated privileges and protections for Jews with European monarchs. An excellent example is that of Daniel Itzig (1723–1799), the Court Jew of Kings Frederick II the Great and Frederick William II of Prussia, who used his wealth and influence to persuade these monarchs to abolish many restrictions on Prussian Jews and grant them a succession of privileges. Put simply, the concentration of power in individuals meant that Jewish interests could also be negotiated by individuals.

However, although we may still see echoes of the old shtadlans in individuals like George Soros or Sheldon Adelson, the dispersal of political power following the collapse of the absolute monarchies required a greater number of Jewish “persuaders,” thus necessitating the development of the modern Jewish “diplomatic” organization. Of course, the majority of these modern bodies vigorously deny their “diplomatic” or political function, preferring to style themselves as “self-defense” bodies or similar abstractions. Writing on the subject of shtadtlanut Samuel Freedman has argued that Jews have “become wedded to a “crisis model” in community-building, in which either Holocaust commemoration or opposition to anti-Semitism are the raison d’etre for the largest communal organizations, from the Simon Wiesenthal Center to the American Jewish Committee.” This masking of deeper political interests should be seen as combining deception (of Europeans) and self-deception (among some Jews) in the broader Jewish strategy, or at least as a device designed to boost the recruitment of “persuaders.” Jews (at least those not consciously engaged in deception) and Europeans are thus led to believe that such bodies are necessary to defend and protect a vulnerable community in crisis, when in fact their primary function is to advance the interests of an extremely wealthy, culturally invulnerable, and politically powerful community — a hostile elite.

Story of Argobad contextualizes the case brought against Jez Turner

In searching for the origins of the hostile elite I was therefore looking for the earliest possible example of a Diaspora Jewish community in which shtadtlanut was in evidence — the obtaining of privileges and protections from a European elite, contrary to the interests of the masses of a given European population. Although I would very much welcome further suggestions from readers, the earliest convincing case that I have come upon concerns that of the Carolingian dynasty during the lifetime of Archbishop Agobard (c. 779–840).[5] Agobard was a Spanish-born priest and archbishop of Lyon during the Carolingian Renaissance. A fearless controversialist, Agobard gained fame and notoriety during his lifetime — and a place in posterity — by expressing his opposition to Jewish political influence in the Frankish kingdom.  Agobard’s Spanish origins are important. Bernard Bachrach notes that Agobard would have been very much aware of the scale and impact of Jewish influence, writing that “Agobard was born and raised in the Spanish March and Septimania where the Jews were extremely powerful. … He was aware of the power that the Jews of the Narbonnaise had exercised for centuries.”[6]

READ MORE...

Although Schumer remains as self righteous a bracket about immigration as ever, in point of fact, he was part of a group of eight which proposed a bill in 2013 to end the Visa Lottery Program. True, he was perhaps opposed to the Visa Lottery for the same reason that the Republican dominated Capital Hill shot down the bill to end the lottery - because it provided a loop hole in which some Whites, who might not otherwise be able, could actually immigrate to the Unites States despite the anti-White measures of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Either way - “lottery” or sheer “merit” - Trump’s proposing a “merit based immigration system” to replace the Visa Lottery is just proposition-nation rigmarole; and in fact, disingenuous: Though he’s promised to adopt a system that gives preference to skilled immigrants, in fact he’s doing the exact opposite.

NBC News, “Trump: Suspect Entered U.S. in ‘Diversity Visa Lottery,’ Blames Schumer”, 1 Nov 2017:

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the Uzbek immigrant suspected of killing eight people in New York City with a rental truck entered the U.S. through the “Diversity Visa Lottery Program,” and the president accused Sen. Chuck Schumer and other Democrats of having loosened the nation’s borders.

Trump did not provide any supporting evidence for the claim about the visa program, which was being discussed on the morning TV program “Fox and Friends” that the president indicated in his tweets he was watching.

“The terrorist came into our country through what is called the ‘Diversity Visa Lottery Program,’ a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based,” Trump tweeted.

At a Cabinet meeting later, Trump said he would work with Congress to end the visa program.

“I am today starting the process of terminating the diversity lottery program. I am going to ask Congress to immediately…get rid of this program,” said the president, who called the suspect an “animal.” “Diversity lottery — sounds nice, it’s not nice. It’s not good. It hasn’t been good.”

Trump continued, “We want people that are going to help our country, we want people that are going to keep our country safe. We don’t want lotteries where the wrong people are in the lotteries and guess what? Who are the suckers that get those people? We want a merit-based system.”

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security later confirmed the suspect in the attack, a 29-year-old Uzbek immigrant named Sayfullo Saipov, had been admitted to the U.S. “upon presentation of a passport with a valid diversity immigrant visa to U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 2010.”

After Trump’s attacks on him, Schumer shot back on Twitter: “I guess it’s not too soon to politicize a tragedy.”

In a statement, the New York senator slammed Trump for “dividing America” and called on the president not to follow through on proposed cuts to “vital anti-terrorism funding.”

“I have always believed and continue to believe that immigration is good for America,” Schumer said. “President Trump, instead of politicizing and dividing America, which he always seems to do at times of national tragedy, should be focusing on the real solution — anti-terrorism funding — which he proposed cutting in his most recent budget.”

Schumer also took on Trump in a passionate speech from the Senate floor, asking, “President Trump, where is your leadership?”

The New York lawmaker drew a comparison between Trump’s conduct after Tuesday’s attack and the way former President George W. Bush responded to 9/11.

Bush “understood the meaning of his high office” in the midst of a national tragedy, Schumer said. “The contrast between President Bush’s actions after 9/11 and President Trump’s actions this morning couldn’t be starker.”

The Trump-Schumer back and forth came less than 24 hours after eight people were killed and more than a dozen injured when a motorist in a rented pickup truck deliberately drove down a bike path in lower Manhattan and mowed down several people before crashing into a school bus in what officials said was a terror attack.

Police found a note inside the truck indicating the suspect claimed to have carried out the attack to show his support for ISIS.

In a planned attack which he declared on behalf of ISIL, Sayfullo Saipov rented a pickup truck and mowed down pedestrians and cyclists along a busy bike path near the World Trade Center memorial 31 Oct 2017, killing eight.

According to The New York Times, he had obtained a green card, giving him permanent legal resident status in the U.S.

Trump, in his tweets Wednesday, was apparently referring to the Diversity Immigrant Visa lottery, which was established by the Immigration Act of 1990. That bill was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush.

The program allows the State Department to offer 50,000 visas annually to immigrants from countries with low immigration rates.

Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans alike hit back against Trump.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on “Morning Joe” that “it was kind of absurd (for Trump)...to be using it as a fulcrum for…this kind of a debate.”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, at a press conference later Wednesday, said Trump’s tweets “were not factual” and “were not helpful.”

“You play into the hands of the terrorists,” Cuomo, a Democrat, said when asked for his thoughts on the tweets. “The tone now should be the exact opposite on all levels.”

Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who have both become vocal Trump critics since announcing they would not run for reelection next year, also took on the president.

“I don’t think that brings out the best in our country,” Corker told NBC News, while Flake called Trump’s response “premature.”

“He should express solidarity with those trying to fix this (visa) program,” Flake said.

Another Republican defended the diversity visa lottery.

“To be honest with you, I’ve known a number of people in New York who come in under the lottery system — they’ve made outstanding contributions, they’ve become citizens,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a former House Homeland Security Committee chairman, told the Fox Business Network. “So that really is separate from the idea of the vetting.”

According to the State Department, diversity visa lottery applicants must meet certain education and work experience requirements, including having obtained “at least a high school education or its equivalent” or “two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience to perform.”

The State Department determines those accepted under the program through a randomized computer drawing, its website states.

In 2013, a bipartisan group of senators, including Schumer, known as the “Gang of Eight” proposed a compromise immigration reform bill that would have eliminated the diversity lottery. The bill did not make it through Congress.

“The Collapse of the Soviet Union Was the Greatest Geo-Political Catastrophe of the Century” - Vladimir Putin

Last Day of The Soviet Union. Now subtitled by RT, “Stabbing The Empire”, it provides further background - telling the story of the Bialowieza Accords that dissolved The Soviet Union.

On December 8th, 1991, the three leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the document which marked the end of the Soviet empire. The fate of the great conglomerate country was decided in less than 24 hours. It happened in secret in a remote residence in the Belavezha forest. Soon the agreement entered the history as the Belavezha Accords. Visit the place where it happened and reveal the mysterious details of the document with the eyewitnesses to the historic event only on RT.

READ MORE...

Peter Ling in Trafalgar Sq.

Bill Baillie, regarding democracy, European Outlook, #47:

“Serendipity” - The occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way.

An old copy of Colin Jordan’s magazine Gothic Ripples caught my eye. It was from February 1988 and posted by www.jrbooksonline.com  

“Peter Ling, a life-long National Socialist, member of the British NSM, died 16/10/87.”

I knew Peter Ling in the old days. He is pictured selling Combat at a meeting of the old BNP in Trafalgar Square. He was an accomplished writer, speaker and street fighter. I guessed that he was dead but I never knew the details. His powerful essay, Authoritarianism v Democracy, originally published in Combat in 1959, was reprinted in European Outlook # 5, May 2014. Here is an extract:

“But the most telling and final indictment of democracy is that in time of great human stress and endeavour it rejects and abandons its philosophical basis. In time of war when the ruling interests are really threatened, democratic values go overboard and the erstwhile democracy gears itself immediately to an authoritarian form of government. Even in time of peace democracy does not attempt to organize its armed forces “democratically” or to sail its great ships across the oceans of the world without the strong hand of authority and responsibility at the helm.

What an indictment of democracy that it can only weld its subjects into a single great united whole for the purpose of destruction! That its fundamental wealth and assets, which only too often represent the ill-rewarded toil of generation of its loyal citizens can be squandered overnight in order to procure fantastic financial sums for expenditure upon war and death, but when it comes to building something great for its own people – as a whole that is – in time of peace, the will and the credit dry up, and “Freedom” reigns once more; freedom for the poor to get out of the slums if they can and freedom for the financier to squat in his banking house and receive the lickspittle homage of parliamentarians of all parties.”

With regard to capitalism, Bill Baillie writes in the same edition, European Outlook, #47:

Capitalism relies on unmoored physical movement, tenuous interpersonal connections, and sensual whim for its sustenance and has thus both facilitated the historical march of irony and provided a system of nostalgia to act as an opiate by which to provide temporary relief from the agony of meaninglessness. By disseminating palliative symbols and profiting on access to them, this system thrives and immobilizes white populations by reducing their understanding of history to false inevitabilities, superficialities, platitudes, and decontextualized assertions. Our histories, both personal and collective, become a collection of sounds, images, and texts to be bought, sold, and traded based on the emotional appeal of any particular example. There is no need for order, no need for context, and no need for contemplation. All that is required is a desire for temporary escape from the conditions maintained by capitalism.

Inherent in the practice of nostalgia is a search for meaning coupled with the unavoidable psychological tendency to mark the passage of time. These are neither unhealthy nor unnatural impulses on their own but under capitalism, as connections to “blood and soil” weaken, they take on a greater significance and work in concert to manufacture a toxic individual and collective mental state. Rather than producing minds that are energetically oriented towards the future, they produce minds mired in the past, emotionally dependent on the avoidance of reality, trapped by delusions of resurrection and romance. Whole populations of people are reduced to immobility and blind acceptance of whichever way the sociopolitical winds are blowing by dwelling on what are, somewhat paradoxically, calming images of defeat. The system of nostalgia preys on these vulnerabilities. Parasites will always take advantage of easily manipulated biological drives and psychological urges.

It is important, however, to make the distinction between historical memory and nostalgia. Historical memory — so crucial to all nationalisms — is an understanding of history as a part of a living, vital, forward-moving process. It is the integration of the essence of past collective experience into the present. It is the use of history to more deeply understand those forces which act upon groups in the present and which propel history forward. That is to say, it is a sense of history that enables the creation of history. Nostalgia, on the other hand, is a pathological obsession with turning back the clock, of venerating lost eras, of dreaming of racial or civilizational regeneration minus action. It is an inherently reactionary and therefore counterproductive orientation.

In a healthy society, the weakness of nostalgists is marginalized by the vitality of the society itself. After all, it is hard to utterly devote oneself to a romanticized past if that past is no more vital than the present. But under the capitalist order, in which the temporary has more value than the eternal, the trivial is prioritized over the meaningful, and every day brings some new example of social degradation, nostalgists — through little fault of their own, it must be said — blossom and are able to infect the masses with their weakness and indeed are rewarded for doing so. What would have been relatively simple and harmless reminiscences in a healthy society become a state of being in an unhealthy society. This leads ultimately to pessimism and political paralysis. If one’s worldview is based on a return to a romanticized past, one will be doomed to failure and misery. Time moves in only one direction.

Instead of an adventurous life, nostalgia begets a safe life. Instead of engagement, nostalgia rewards retreat. Instead of optimism, nostalgia promotes pessimism. Each of us has witnessed the many years of media corporations and socially acceptable public figures reminding whites that we will become minorities in our own lands and that we should warmly embrace this fate. This message is, of course, fairly direct. But working alongside this message is this highly profitable system of nostalgia which temporarily soothes any discomfort. “You, white man,” we are told, “are going to be a minority but please just watch this television show rerun, listen to this classic rock band, enjoy this old film and forget about it.” Not only does nostalgia offer an escape from reality but upon return — after the high has worn off — one’s sense of loss will be heightened. The chasm between the idealized past and unsatisfactory present seems to become increasingly insurmountable. We are conditioned on all sides to accept our demise, directly and indirectly. And we pay good money for this conditioning.

There is little under capitalism that cannot be bought and sold. The natural impulses of the human mind to memorialize its own existence and seek spiritual value provide the capitalist with opportunities to feed on our meaninglessness, on our discomfort in this world, on our desire for a better place, on our loss of hope and energy. Helpless, hopeless, and drugged by the omnipresent symbols of our planned fate, the capitalist is able to work freely with little resistance. The real engines of history become buried under layer upon layer of textual sludge. The system of nostalgia offers for sale an impossible dream which destines the buyer to political impotence and spiritual impoverishment.

READ MORE...

CNBC, “Mueller Is Now ‘Untouchable’ After The Manafort Indictment: Former US Attorney”, 30 Oct 2017:

John Lauro, former U.S. Attorney on the scope of the indictment:

“It’s very aggressive.” While it doesn’t have anything to do with the campaign yet, it is a historical indictment that includes money laundering, failure to register as a foreign agent and conspiracy against the United States.

“And they threw in something at the end there which was very significant - at the very end an item about his son-in-law. They are going to press him to no end. They are going to pressure Paul Manafort to flip or cooperate [like the prisoner’s dilemma?]. Absolutely”

“The significance of this indictment is that it gives Mueller cover going forward, nobody’s going to touch him because Paul Manafort is under indictment. And this gives him opportunity to press Manefort for information.”

[When you say nobody’s going to touch him, what do you mean?]

“He can’t be fired by the president of the United States, there’s no way, this indictment is significant because going forward nobody is going to even suggest that the investigation should stop or that Meuller should be relieved of his duties.”

“Because Paul Manafort is under indictment now, the investigation is moving forward, Trump would be impeached the next day [for obstruction of justice] if he tried to remove Mueller.”

“Mueller is now untouchable as a result of this indictment. That’s the significance of it.”

[You’ve actually got two guys under indictment, Manafort and Gates, setting up another prisoner’s dilemma as they could turn on one another]

“Right, right.”

“And here’s how the conversation goes: Mr. Manefort, you’re facing a long time in jail. Your son-in-law could be implicated, we’re ready to indict your son-in-law as well, what are you going to give us in return? What are you going to talk about? Whether its the Trump administration, other business deals or the campaign itself?”

[and they’re saying the same thing to Rick Gates as well?]

“Absolutely, that’s going on right now.”

“It’s very specific: they call it a ‘speaking indictment’, and prosecutors do that in order to signal to the defense that we have a powerful case against you.”

“This is actually a long standing case against Manafort that Meuller picked up because it allows him to squeeze Manafort and Gates.”

“The government acts slowly, but when they do, they’ve made sure to button-down every hatch.”

“The indictment sends a message to everybody that ‘we’re serious.’ There’s going to be a lot of pressure on Manafort. I suspect that there’s going to be other indictments as well; anybody who is the subject of a federal investigation, with dozens of FBI agents and sixteen of the most skilled prosecutors, good luck to you.”

Poland is correct to denounce Richard Spencer in his neo-Molotov-Ribbentrop larp.

While the Polish government is not perfectly articulate of its reasons to denounce Richard Spencer for his advocacy of a counter productive world view, they are not far off the mark and not wrong to reject him either.

Typical of American right wingers, Spencer is nursing a neo-Germanophilic world view, overly sympathetic to the German imperialism of the world wars (and antagonistic to Great Britain’s ‘interference’), with a new twist that would larp and valence a re-empowered German / Russian axis -  i.e., a newly got up Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement for an “imperium”, i.e., imperialism that would run rough shod over the interests of many necessary allies - Hungary rejected him for the same reason Poland rejects him for the same reason Britain rejected him for the same reason Japan would reject him (for the same reason all of Asia would reject him for the same reason Zionism embraces him, for the quid pro quo reasoning that comprador wielding right wing enterprises embrace him) etc. - while his larped empire (Lisbon to Vladivastok) would be governed by whom? Apparently he would depend heavily on working with Jewish interests to facilitate (maneuver) his Russo-Germanic grand civic Euro larp, in Duginesque delusion of grandeur - a delusion coddled by ((())).

News Week, “Richard Spencer Is Too Racist for Poland’s Right-Wing Government”, 27 Oct 2017:

Poland’s right-wing government doesn’t want white supremacist Richard Spencer to visit the Eastern European country, calling him a “threat” to democracy.

Spencer was scheduled to speak at a conference organized by Poland’s far right to celebrate Polish Independence Day on November 11, but the country’s Foreign Ministry condemned the alt-right leader, whose condemnation of diversity has found support among neo-Nazis, whose ideological predecessors invaded Poland and killed millions during World War II.

“As a country which was one of the biggest victims of Nazism, we believe that the ideas promoted by Mr. Spencer and his followers could pose a threat to all those who hold dear the values of human rights and democracy,” the Polish Foreign Ministry said in a statement, adding that Spencer’s views are in conflict with Poland’s legal order.

Poland is not beyond criticism in its brand and particular expressions of nationalism, but Richard Spencer is highly dubious in his imperial larp; and the Poles are correct to denounce Spencer and like apologists for the imperialist aspirations of Nazi Germany and the casualties it left in the wake of its aspired imperialism, relevantly in this case, the Poland that came back not as “a gift of Woodrow Wilson”, but through the endurance and perseverance of Polish nationalism through 123 years in exile during the tri-partition; and then again through 50 years in exile during the Nazi and Soviet regimes.

Related story, DT, “Population to surge by four million due to mass immigration that will ‘change the face of England forever.” Credit: SPL/Barcroft Media

The population of the UK is projected to shoot up by 3.6 million or 5 and a half percent over the next ten years, with more than half of the growth due to mass migration. According to new data from The Office of National Statistics, or ONS, the population will pass 70 million by mid 2029 and be 72.9 million in mid 2041. The population boom is equivalent of more than three new cities the size of Birmingham appearing on the UK over a decade.

Separate ONS statistics reported two months ago suggest that over a third of babies born in England and Wales had at least one foreign born parent. In London it was two thirds.

DM, “Britain’s population will hit 70 million before 2030 and more than HALF the increase in the next decade will be from immigration”, 26 Oct 2017:

Britain’s population will surge past 70 million before the end of the next decade, new forecasts reveal today with more than half the increase caused by immigration.

The number of people living in Britain will rise by 3.6 million - 5.5 per cent - in a decade and the country will be home to 70 million by mid 2029.

The new forecast from the Office for National Statistics considers immigration, fertility and life expectancy.

It concluded that over the next ten years, 46 per cent of UK population growth is projected to result from more births than deaths, with 54 per cent attributed to net international migration.

Taking into account babies born to foreign parents in Britain, immigration will indirectly account for 77 per cent of the population growth.

[...]

Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, warned the projections were ‘extraordinarily low’ based on historical migration

Over the decade from mid-2016, the projections suggest that 7.7 million people will be born and 6.1 million will die, while 5.2 million people will immigrate on a long-term basis to the UK with 3.2 million emigrating from the country.

He said: ‘This is serious because it will lead to inadequate planning for housing, schools, hospitals and infrastructure – as, indeed, we have seen in recent years. Yet again the ONS have been much too cautious.

‘It is also of note that, on the principal projection, immigration, including the effect on births, will account for 77 per cent of population growth over the next 25 years.

‘If immigration continues at the ONS high migration assumption, which is roughly present levels, the population will grow by almost ten million, of which 82 per cent will be due to immigration – that is an additional eight million people.

‘This underlines the need for a successful Brexit which could substantially reduce recent levels of net EU migration, perhaps by 100,000 a year.’

Andrew Nash, of the ONS Population Projections Unit, said: ‘Over the period between mid-2016 and mid-2026 the population of the UK is projected to grow from 65.6 million to 69.2 million, reaching 70 million by mid-2029.

[...]

Over the decade from mid-2016 projected growth varies substantially between the four nations of the UK.

England’s population is projected to grow 5.9 per cent over this period. For Northern Ireland the figure is 4.2 per cent while for Scotland and Wales the figures are 3.2 per cent and 3.1 per cent respectively.

As well as the direct impact, international migration has an indirect effect on the population, statisticians said.

For example, women coming to the UK who subsequently have children will increase the numbers of births.

Conversely, women emigrating before they have children will decrease the number of births.

Once the indirect effect is taken into account, international migration accounts for more than three quarters (77 per cent) of the projected UK population growth over the 25 years from 2016, according to the ONS report.

It is significant that Trump has declared his campaign against the opioid issue a worldwide problem.

It is a reflection of dishonesty and supremacism as opposed to a move toward ethnonational coordination.

A preliminary matter of suspicion has to do with resources being devoted to criminal enforcement rather than public health.

In particular, resources as such are not necessarily being devoted even for the public health management of the poor White communities impacted. But rather toward a covert means to deal with blacks and browns though criminalization; while resources will be devoted to foreign browns and yellows to a lesser extent through criminalization, but to a greater extent through politicization - their being seen as engaging in a covert war of drug trafficking - a depiction which could then mutate into broader, more explicit wars, markedly in Asia.

This comes back to dishonesty and supremacism as opposed to White Nationalism, which is supposed to represent ethnonationalism for European peoples.

As ethnonationals, we should be working on rule structures which lead to our separatism and sovereignty for ourselves, blacks, browns and yellows. We do not want to be a part of the same governance; and in fact, we need to be of a separate governance.

It is supremacist to detain migrants, drug users and petty dealers for any significant length of time in prisons - private jails in particular have been cited as being used for the literal supramacist purpose of slave labor.

Ethno-nationals would either repatriate them or work on the means of separatism, physically and legally; i.e., they would honestly admit that in seeing themselves as significantly different from these people, that they want to be separate; and need to separate, as opposed to generating an atmosphere of exploitation and revenge; or the liberal supremacism of integrationist genocide. That only separatism, not heirarchical control within the same governance will allow us to manage our peoples in good faith coordination with others.

As for the trafficking of opioids, cocaine and other drugs - again, rather than a government engaging in a dishonest, covert means of warfare against a people that Jews and right wingers see as a threat (Hispanics and Asians), White governance needs to acknowledge that drugs have long been, though clandestinely, a huge part of Western economies; and what needs to happen instead is an open and honest acknowledgement of the part these drugs play in the medical and recreational economy and as a public health issue - in the need for mental adventure and a certain amount of pleasure on the one hand; and in the need for escape into being, the need to deal with pain, anxiety, depression, boredom and despair on the other hand - particularly regarding the addictive aspects and the anti-social ramifications of abuse that can ensue. Thus, not only dealing with the punishable aspects of drug abuse, but in the social compassion of looking into and dealing with what might be lacking in these peoples lives that has them not seeing better recourse to drug abuse or illegal trafficking.

This would allow for a better management of our own peoples. In addition, this would allow for a fair, non-Jewish, non-right wing negotiation with Asian and South American peoples, as opposed to more brutal exploitation and catastrophic wars in the dishonest interests of Jews and right wingers.