Jul 15, 2015

How You Say it: The Importance of Language

via Occident Invicta

While many in the alt right have mixed views on the manosphere, there are trenchant “red pill” adherents who frequently bless the internet with their edifying insights. One of these individuals is a Roosh V Forum poster who goes by the name Scorpion. In response to the left’s latest triumph – and the corresponding conservative pessimism – Scorpion makes an excellent argument about the need to change the terms of debate (emphasis mine):
This is why it’s so important to refuse to legitimize the language the left uses to sanitize their poisonous social agendas. Don’t use the word “gay”, for example, and don’t speak of “same-sex marriage”. When you do this you are buying into the leftist frame by utilizing their sanitized language. Instead, use language that is either objective or reactionary/right wing in nature, in order to combat their frame.
This is why I always use the word homosexual in place of “gay” or “same-sex”. When I speak of “transgendered” individuals I always use the person’s biological sex pronouns and pair the transgender label with “mentally ill”, “freak” or “sex pervert”.
Controlling language is controlling thought. By using the language of the left, you are unknowingly allowing them to control the debate, since everything is being talked about in their terms, which immediately makes them seem legitimate even if they are completely insane (i.e. referring to a man with female pronouns, or calling shameless homosexual perverts “gay” to soften their image and make them seem harmless).
I’ve previously written about the need to adopt a new conception of group conflict that occludes the left’s attempts to put whites and men on the defensive by branding them “oppressors.” That’s fine and all, but I feel that one of the problems with the right is that their arguments are not quick and catchy. By the time one has pontificated about the corrosive effects of multiculturalism and feminism, most regular people will have already tuned out. Americans by and large are intellectually lazy; they’re more likely to be swayed by pithy and clever bumper stickers than sophisticated articles by Pat Buchanan and Andy Nowicki.

I’ll admit, I have yet to create witty bumper stickers espousing cherished alt right beliefs. However, what we can do for now is become more cognizant of the language we use. Here is my own brief list of words that we should use in place of increasingly widespread leftist terms.

1. Majoritarianism. While leftists use the term “privilege” as a cudgel to attack myriad groups, whites are their favorite target. The idea that whites might enjoy certain perks not afforded to others represents a great crime against humanity. However, in Western nations, there is absolutely nothing wrong with whiteness being the norm; likewise, whites should dictate culture. Unfortunately, “privilege” has a negative connotation, as the word instantly conjures up spoiled people who enjoy easy, painless lives. Therefore, use the term “majoritarianism” in the place of “privilege.” After all, since whites are still the majority in Western nations – and were the architects of the US, Canada, and Australia – then such nations should have a white character.

Some might wonder how I could promote such a term; after all, I live in a region where whites are the minority. Well, take it from someone on the front lines: whites around  America need to embrace an unapologetically majoritarian attitude before the rest of the country goes the way of California.

2. Normal. Men and women who prefer to leave their natural organs intact are simply normal, which is how you should describe regular people when comparing them to transsexuals. The word “cisgender” out to inspire a combination of amusement and revulsion.

3. Non-whites. For starters, I hope that none of you ever say “people of color.” If there is any term that reinforces the leftist frame, this is it. Likewise, refrain from using the liberal euphemism “diversity.” Diversity has an exciting, flavorful connotation; by opposing diversity, you might as well refuse to eat out at a cool Thai restaurant. Who wants to convey an uncultured, close-minded attitude?

However, “diversity” – as used by the left – means greater numbers of non-whites. When describing recent demographic changes, our language should always blatantly highlight ongoing white displacement. If more whites clearly understood that “diversity” results in fewer of them and greater numbers of non-whites, then they might look at multiculturalism more askance.

I’m sure there is much more to add, but the general point is that we must always be mindful of the words we use. If you’re conversing with people who employ pro-liberal language, then politely – but firmly – question and challenge them. Should you find yourself chatting with open-minded moderates, use subtle words that make them more receptive to alt right talking points. If we wish to make a comeback in the culture war, then we must find ways to control the conversation. Otherwise, the legalization of gay marriage will be a minor irritant compared to what lies beyond the horizon.

The 'Traitor' Trope

via Alternative Right

Unlike some others in my ideological vicinity, I have very little use for the internet practice of "trolling." Aging Gen-X fuddy-duddy fogey that I am, I find the practice of intentionally trying to get under others' skin for kicks to be a generally obnoxious and contemptible pastime.
I say this in full awareness that some online personalities are enormously irritating, just begging to be trolled the same way that certain smug faces simply cry out to be slapped. And to be sure,  I have occasionally indulged in some schadenfreude-laden private cackles when a nasty and sanctimonious commentator gets tricked into making an ass of himself thanks to the expert machinations of  a properly placed merry prankster. But generally, trolling seems juvenile and cheap, akin to schoolyard taunting, a symptom of small-mindedness and general jerky douchery.
It was with some surprise, therefore, that I found myself perusing the comments section after an article about a massive pro-Confederate flag rally which took place recently in Florida. I don't typically bother to check in on "flame wars," wherein generally illiterate representatives of warring factions lob tired, toothless impotent insults at one another and no one emerges the wiser, but everyone claims to be "LOL-ing all the while, the better to obstreperously signal their utter nonchalance in the face of their foes' hateful vituperation.
Lately, however, I have noticed the anti-Confederate confederates seem to have launched a new sort of rhetorical offensive, presumably in an effort to throw the stubborn neo-pro-Southies off balance. Instead of insisting that rocking the "stars and bars" can only mean defending the practice of Negro chattel slavery, they are now troping on about how the Confederate flag represents "treason and sedition," a brazen rebellion against lawful authority. One commentator I read even went so far as to say, that the flag "represents a middle finger to America." (To which I responded, only semi-trollingly, "And that's a bad thing?")
Why are they using this particular line? Is it an effort to flummox the pro-Confeds by equating them with anti-American leftist radicals, such as those who sold out their country to pimp for the Soviets, the Maoists, or the Vietcong? If so, perhaps drawing such an equivalence is meant to tweak the presumptive (and paradoxical) pro-American stance of many "red state" folk – those who gravitate to Southern culture and heritage even as they thrill to pro-Union jingoistic fare like Lee Greenwood's Proud to Be an American, Toby Keith's Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue, and Ray Stevens' Osama, Yo Mama, who deplore the murderous rapine ordered by Lincoln and carried out by the likes of Sherman and Sheridan in the 1860s, even as they reflexively defend the excesses of the modern American military-industrial complex and the murderous rapine it breeds all over the world today.
The "traitor trope," in short, must be part of the concerted campaign currently afoot to shame the South and further the cultural revolution of uprooting the traditional, even to the ghastly extent of ordering the digging up of the bones of those who fought on the "wrong" side of a war that ended before anyone now alive was even born! This charge of "treason" is self-evidently spurious, of course, especially if one believes that the American revolution of 1776 was legitimate. If the first revolution wasn't "treasonous," why would the attempted secession of the Southern states in 1861 be ipso facto evidence of "sedition"?
In short, those who sling the "traitor trope" only want to score troll points, but the case they attempt to make is easily dismissed. What is most interesting to note is the fact that they have employed this trolling strategy in the first place. It is an intriguing matter that invites greater examination.

Discussing White Privilege -- The Only Job Whites Won't Do

via Audacious Epigone

The bugger and scofflaw Jose Antonio Vargas is hosting an upcoming MTV 'documentary' entitled White People. It "tackles the hot topic conversation of white privilege head-on in a special presentation borne out of MTV's Emmy-winning Look Different campaign". It appears that the formula is to prod some college-aged white kids into humiliating themselves about how they feel about their whiteness followed by a group reeducation session where several of these impressionable young people who've spent their entire lives immersed in a culture of white guilt come together to wallow in that guilt collectively and therapeutically.

There isn't anything particularly surprising about something like this being produced by a cable network. It's just one of countless examples of the continual deracinating of any kind of white identity that is not firmly rooted in ethnomasochism. What is noteworthy is how it is being received by the plebes. The youtube trailer is currently pulling a 1:4 like-dislike ratio, and the comments appear to be even more lopsided than that.

Scoff at this garbage. When someone brings up white privilege, sardonically ask if that is the privilege of being violently assaulted by a black man (since black-on-white violent crime is nearly 40 times more common than white-on-black violent crime is), or if it is the privilege of being able to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes every year to be distributed to non-whites after government bureaucrats have taken their cuts for nothing in return, or if it is the privilege of having to perform better scholastically and in the office to receive the same rewards that NAMs do.

Don't take a browbeating sitting down, and when someone else does, interject without apology. To the extent that you're able to, provide that honest conversation about race that the race hustlers putatively desire we all have.

Honor, Discipline, and Dylann Roof

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

Dylann Roof
Judged from a Cosmotheist perspective, the recent actions of Dylann Roof — who killed nine Blacks by shooting them in their largely-segregated Charleston, SC church a few days ago — are simultaneously understandable, inevitable, and misdirected. And they may contribute — in ways that neither Roof nor our enemies anticipate — to breaking the stasis that holds White people in our current downward slow-death spiral.

What Dylann Roof did on June 17 was understandable for many, many reasons — almost all of which are considered unmentionable by the powers that be in the former United States of America.

It is a fact that some 90 percent. of interracial violent crime is Black on White in this country. It is also a fact that far more than 90 per cent. of the national news coverage of interracial crime carried in the controlled media concerns allegedly “racist” Whites (or proxies for Whites such as the racially-mixed George Zimmerman) who kill or harm Blacks or other non-Whites. From the Rodney King affair a quarter century ago, to the “unrest” stoked by media outrage over the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin and Freddie Gray cases in recent years, there is a repeated pattern of media sensationalism and the deliberate creation of a narrative of alleged nationwide “White racism” to justify Black violence. But when young Whites are raped and tortured and murdered execution-style by Blacks — when a little White boy is blowtorched to death by a Black — when innumerable other crimes against Whites are committed — there is no outrage, and usually no national coverage at all, from the controlled media.

(It’s interesting to note that Dylann Roof’s own actions are now the subject of exactly the same kind of selective media outrage that awakened Roof in the first place. Just as the CIA drone bombings of innocents in the Middle East produces hundreds of new “bin Ladens” for every “terrorist” killed, so too does the Jews’ own overreaching and unabashed hatred of Whites bring new White awakenings every day.)

And Dylann Roof noticed all this. He saw he was being lied to on a massive scale. He saw who the real victims and real perpetrators were. He did research and found White nationalist Web sites that told the truth — the verifiable truth — on these matters. He checked the facts, and even found some of the data on interracial crime on Wikipedia. And, angered because he had been lied to, and by the fact that he saw no real, effective action to counter the liars, he decided that he had to act himself. And he unfortunately decided to make his act an act of mere revenge.

Since Roof’s act of revenge there have been several other mass shootings, two of them in Philadelphia and Detroit in just the last few days. Since these were all Black-on-Black shootings, of which there are hundreds every year, they received close to zero media attention. Not a single network pundit bade us worry about the epidemic of Black crime — which is real — but plenty opined on the almost nonexistent threat of “White racist” violence.

As one astute observer remarked to me recently:

Spree killings are now relatively common among all races in America.
But elites care only about those perpetrated by Whites, especially racially conscious ones. They selectively use such killings to advance the state’s genocidal agenda. If there were no White spree killings at all, nothing would change. There would merely be different excuses and “justifications.” The killings don’t make matters worse (or better) for Whites; they don’t speed up genocide or slow it down.

Three episodes must be separated from run-of-the-mill killings: the activities of The Order in the 1980s, Timothy McVeigh in the 1990s, and Anders Behring Breivik in Norway in 2011. These are of an entirely different degree of sophistication and magnitude than the others. McVeigh, of course, was not a racialist, but he was anti-government.

The 1980s and ’90s already belong to a different era from the standpoint of social and political milieu. Jewish power and hatred has enormously increased in the interim, Whites are on their deathbed, and Big Government is more sinister and extremist than ever. Ominously, Jews keep ratcheting up murderous hatred against Whites. Their shrillness and bloodthirstiness is impossible to ignore.

As far as the other killings go, the most remarkable thing about them is their pointlessness. The perpetrators are aware that they will die or wind up in prison for life. Yet they do not even choose high-value targets. There is essentially no rhyme or reason to their actions. This makes me view them more as symptoms than individuals.

Jews, the Left, and the government are committing genocide. There is no doubt about that. It can be denied, but denial does not alter the fact. When a decision is made to eliminate an entire race of people, never mind a major race of mankind — the first time in history that such an operation has been contemplated and undertaken — there is bound to be a reflex action on the part of the victims, no matter how mild and ineffectual. Spree killers are one such reflex.

My view is that the members of the ruling class responsible for the greatest crime against humanity ever committed should thank their god, the Devil, every night that they have been let off so easily. They don’t, of course, but they should. It is remarkable that basically nothing has happened to them, or will happen to them, apart from a massive increase in their wealth and power. Amerindians put up a far more spirited fight against dispossession than have Whites against intentional genocide which the ruling class itself sanctimoniously declares to be the most serious of all crimes!

They are obviously running a well-oiled killing machine with utmost efficiency.

Since Dylann Roof’s deed, the Jewish power structure has been in double overdrive, seeking to ban the Confederate flag as a “racist symbol,” censor pro-White speech, and ratchet up government persecution of White dissidents, using Roof as an excuse. The media frenzy has been monomaniacal and continuous. The spilling of blood, as it often does, has flushed out the enemy from his hiding places and kicked all of us out of our former stasis, so new dangers — and opportunities — are about to emerge (Large rallies in the South to oppose the demonization and banning of the Confederate flag are being planned — and the National Alliance will be there, raising racial awareness with this flyer, downloadable here [5.5×8.5 inches and 2-up 8.5×11 inches].)
Dylann Roof’s actions were inevitable because our race still produces men of honor, and men of honor do not go gentle into that good night. A man of honor is not submissive when his loved ones, his family, and the innocent among his folk are killed, tortured, cruelly abused, and enslaved. A man of honor is moved to action when his people are being exterminated and when that willful murder is covered up and justified by lies. A man of honor does not keep silent and do nothing even when keeping silent and doing nothing would result in a painless, easy life. A man of honor steps forward and takes responsibility regardless of personal consequences. As long as our race survives, it will produce men of honor. Honor without discipline, organization, and understanding, however, is ineffective.

Dylann Roof’s understanding was incomplete, and his choice of actions was more than unfortunate — but there will be many more who choose to act in the years to come, men of honor who cannot stand aside and be a spectator to a slaughter of the innocent, to the genocide of our people. And it will be our responsibility to see that those men of honor have a more complete understanding of our people’s plight than did Dylann Roof; it will be our responsibility to ensure that their lives are not wasted on a fruitless gesture of revenge, a slaughter of the innocent among other peoples — while leaving the real murderers unscathed. It will be our responsibility to organize men and women of honor into an organization and a community — and to make that organization the unquestioned vehicle for our people’s rebirth, so that organizational discipline and training and education can direct the energies of such men into a finely-honed and expertly-directed  sword that cuts out all of the rot and the evil and, to the maximum extent possible, only the rot and the evil and leaves the innocent unharmed. My vision is not merely one of Dylann Roof being held back from throwing away his life on an unworthy act, but of building a whole new nation — in the beginning, a nation-in-the-making — in which the martial instincts and inborn patriotism of our youth can find a healthy outlet in the defense of our race and our culture, instead of being thrown away murdering innocents in the Middle East for Israel — or murdering innocents in Europe for NATO and the bankers.

Roof’s actions were misdirected because the Blacks that Roof targeted were the least offensive, least dangerous, and among the most self-segregated Blacks imaginable short of actual separatists; and because they and other Blacks have no power to create — and no intellectual ability to engineer — the multidimensional pincer movement of violence, demoralization, moral perversion, wealth transfer, and mass replacement that threatens White survival. Without the agitation and self-interested manipulation of both Whites and Blacks by the Jewish power structure, American Blacks would either be self-segregated to the point of near-harmlessness — or they’d have been placed on the other side of a border or an ocean from us long ago. If Dylann Roof wanted to sacrifice his freedom and his life in order to inspire Whites to awaken to their grave danger, or defend them against those who are engineering their downfall, why target non-Whites who were most likely not involved in any conscious way in the war against us? — who were perceived as merely trying to live their lives in peace? Such a choice helped our enemies enlist the support of empathetic, altruistic, and sympathetic Whites in their efforts to outlaw speech and organizing on behalf of our race.

How different it would have been if, say, three major operatives of the banking cartel that is bleeding us to death — and three bought-and-paid-for Jew-fawning war-criminal White politicians of the most corrupt and sickening type — and three tax-sucking academics whose careers are based on teaching White students to hate their own race and work for its death — had all been removed from the ranks of the living instead. And how different it would have been if — instead of the way of the barbarian, the Mongol, and the Jew, the way of summary execution — these men had been arrested, indicted, tried, convicted, and punished for capital murder, incitement to murder, genocide, war crimes, theft, fraud, and all the rest of their unspeakable crimes, as appropriate.

How different it would have been if such punishment had been meted out not just by an individual outraged at the crimes of the illegal regime and its overlords, but by a group — a government-in-the-making along the lines of the Irish freedom fighters or the PLO — dedicated to restoring freedom, self-government, and self-determination to our people. Call it the Provisional Revolutionary Government of North America if you like. Whatever you call it, it doesn’t exist — yet. And that’s where we have failed the current generation of White youth. That’s where we failed Dylann Roof.

With discipline — with an organizational vehicle for their physical, mental, and moral energy — with a thorough understanding of their people’s history and a firm grounding in who we are in both the biological and historical senses — with a support network of thousands of racial patriots — with a healthy community in which they can find mates and build for the future — and with the moral certainty of a new, unshakable, fighting creed of iron — our future warriors will be assets to a new and rising nation with an unlimited destiny, instead of out-of-control liabilities to a cowed and cowardly herd of domesticated cattle whose highest aspirations are to live without exertion and to die without pain. Building such a vehicle is the task of the National Alliance, which is well expressed in the National Vanguard logotype: Toward a New Consciousness; a New Order; a New People. Join and help us in that great task — today.

Taking Our Stand

via Radix

After witnessing the anti-Southern hysteria that has metastasized throughout the media and government in recent weeks I felt a pressing need to do something proactive. Of course, it’s certainly not as if our societal overseers didn’t hate the South and any symbol of our unique identity before the murders that took place in Charleston occured, but they have since fully exploited the tragedy in order to launch an attempt to completely eradicate the Confederate flag and any memory of the righteous cause for which it stood. Their efforts have been particularly brutal and bloodthirsty in Memphis, where the local government unanimously passed a resolution to exhume the remains of General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife, as well as remove the monument that sits atop their graves. Not that it matters much, but Confederate Soldiers, Sailors and Marines who fought in The War of Northern Aggression were made U.S. Veterans by an act of Congress in in 1957, U.S. Public Law 85-425, Sec 410, which was approved on May 23, 1958. This made all Confederate Veterans equal to all U.S. Military Veterans, but I digress.

This shocking display of hatred could not go unanswered. In faithful service to the Confederate cavalry my great-great-great-grandfather rode with Forrest at Shiloh. Upon reading the news about their desire to desecrate the grave of an American hero his spirit reminded me of Forrest’s own admonition to, “Get there first with the most men.” I had organized rallies in Memphis before and was determined to do so again. But, rather than rush in haphazardly I thought it would be most prudent to reach out to other acquaintances with similar interests. As it turns out, a pro-Forrest rally was already being planned by other local activists and instead of having two competing events it just made more sense to join in line with those who had already laid some ground work and use the influence of my radio programto provide auxiliary support and assist them in turning out a much larger crowd. We should always concern ourselves first with providing results rather than getting full credit for something.

After receiving a copy of all the details I dutifully went to work. As soon as the local media found out that I was promoting the event I was inundated with requests to appear for interviews. I politely declined them all because this event was about Nathan Bedford Forrest. The last thing I wanted was to let my involvement overshadow the real story. Even yesterday at the event itself I adhered to this policy and kindly asked all reporters to talk with those who had assembled because they were the ones who made the gathering so wildly successful.

The media, however, was not the only entity to get in touch with me in recent days. Quite curiously, I was contacted late last week by a Detective with the Memphis Police Department’s branch of the Office of Homeland Security. He was very courteous, but conveyed to me that there had suddenly arisen a problem concerning the permit secured to hold the event. Apparently, DHS had been monitoring our “social media presence” and had surmised that we were due to turn out a much larger crowd than was originally expected. I was told in no uncertain terms to cease any further promotion of the event on my radio program and website. I was persuaded to comply.

Let me be clear when I say that I have a great deal of respect for the badge. My father worked as a police officer at one time before transferring to the fire department where he later retired as a Captain. The agent that I spoke to was very courteous, but I can’t help but wonder what really prompted their interest. Having done this before my experience is that obtaining a permit to hold a peaceful gathering at a public park is a mere formality. You file for the permit and you’re granted permission. As a citizen, you have the right to assemble on public property with no questions asked. To my knowledge, the only reason a permit is required at all is to ensure that other individuals or organizations aren’t planning a conflicting event at the same place / time.

After making a few calls and talking with other officials I was convinced that proper authority had been granted for the event to move forward. That’s not to say that DHS didn’t possess a bit of analytical prowess. Our own research confirmed that more than 200 people had shared my blurb about the rally to their Facebook pages. Based upon that fact and the number of e-mails I was receiving it did appear as though attendance was going to be high, but since there was no charge to come and no obligation to RSVP even we had no idea how many to expect.

By Sunday morning, the day of the festivities, I had no idea what to anticipate when I arrived at Forrest Park. I didn’t know if law enforcement was going to shut the event down, or if a flash mob was going to be present, or if I’d be met by only a handful of core supporters. Thankfully, none of this happened. There were officers on hand for security, but they were gracious and professional. There were also more than 100 people with Confederate flags on the ground an hour before the scheduled start time. By 2:00, a legitimate and conservative estimate had the crowd numbering upwards of 500. One person claimed it to be 600.

When I last spoke to the event organizers I was told that they were expecting a crowd of 150 people and that any additional folks that I could turn out would be appreciated. I’d say we answered the bell. I had the privilege of being approached by a seemingly endless stream of listeners, some of whom I had met before, but most of whom I had the honor of meeting for the first time. One young man told me that he drove more than ten hours just to be there. Several others had also come in from out of state. If I had been allowed to proceed unencumbered with my originally intended promotional campaign I certainly feel as though a crowd of 750 or even 1000 might have been attained.

Regardless, in today’s political climate to see that many men, women, and children make a public show of force was nothing short of inspirational. Furthermore, the caliber of people was top shelf. I talked with off-duty law enforcement officers, doctors, and business professionals from all walks of life, all either holding or wearing a Confederate flag. I felt as though they were all family and that’s why those who hate us can’t understand our unwillingness to abandon our customs and symbols. We are incapable of forgetting who we are. It’s personal.

The zeal of those of us in Memphis was determined, real, and unapologetic. Has the regime finally met some resistance? It would sure seem that way as the Southern uprising that erupted two weeks and has only strengthened in force since then. In recent days there have been nearly one hundred spontaneous Confederate flag rallies that have drawn tens of thousands of people from across the South.

Think 500 in Memphis was a nice crowd? While we were holding our rally almost five thousandpeople participated in the “Florida Southern Pride Ride,” according to police estimates. Events like this are happening all across Dixie and show no signs of slowing.

There’s a lot of bad news out there, but we must not let the media frame our perception. In addition to the grassroots rebellion we currently see rising up around us we must not lose sight of the fact that the Governor of Tennessee has issued an official proclamation declaring July 13, 2015, to be Nathan Bedford Forrest Day. And, while the flag came down in Columbia, South Carolina, it went up in Ocala, Florida, where the Marion County Commission voted unanimously on Tuesday to restore the Confederate flag at its governmental complex.

We should maintain hope that one day our people will turn and fight and we must find a way to channel this current energy into something sustainable, lest it become nothing more than a monetary recoil to the incessant attacks against our cultural heritage. If America is to reclaim her destiny, she must first look South. Until then, please enjoy some pictures that I took on Sunday. They are, after all, worth a thousand words.

Deo Vindice.

North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet

via Majority Rights

Majorityrights began with and has long been committed to freedom of speech, no matter how controversial the opinion, as I can clearly see from the archives. It has been published as an internet magazine with considerable bravery given the political environment and the risks that come from being misunderstood, and has had a pretty diverse set of contributors and viewers. On 14 October 2014, it marked its tenth year in operation, and I hope that its eleventh year coming in just a few months will be as illuminating as ever. As a newcomer, and as an East Asian woman, I feel privileged to be invited to submit articles from my perspective and experience.

Here, on what could be described as freedom of speech’s front porch in its tenth year, we have a good place to talk frankly and honestly as neighbours and allies with common interests. What I’m about to provide is what I see as a necessary polemic against some positions that exist in Majorityrights’ archives and an invitation to conversation as such.

It is said in warfare about the ‘turning manoeuvre’, that when you move into an opponent’s rear in order to cut them off from their support base, you are taking the risk of getting yourself cut off from your own.

A similar manoeuvre has been attempted by many ethno-nationalists in Europe since 2001 on a political level with regards to the War on Terror, through their decision to advance negative attitudes toward it and their decision to develop talking points that reinforce those attitudes. They are refusing to endorse the War on Terror under the belief that this non-endorsement is somehow a ‘good’ angle to protest the political establishment from. It is not good. Those ethno-nationalists are getting themselves cut off because what they are doing actually undermines their own ability to address a severe demographic threat and also undermines their ability to address a persistent international security threat. It’s an unfortunate situation, because it is crucial for people to be able to square the thoughts that are going on their heads with the reality on the ground: The reality of the necessity of overseas contingency operations.

To understand how things reached the stage that they have reached, first a person has to remember how things started out. The world was stunned to see the events that were taking place on television on 11 September 2001. Nineteen Arab men had hijacked airliners, and rather than putting the planes down at an airport and demanding a ransom, they chose to put the planes down by sending them into buildings in New York City.

People seem to have struggled to understand how this could happen.

Over time, a self-hating narrative built up in which the citizens of the North Atlantic were largely blaming their own governments for having allegedly ‘fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘supporting radical Islamists’, while simultaneously also allegedly ‘fanning the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘opposing Islamists and offending Muslims’. Both of these narratives cannot make sense at the same time, and I would argue that neither of those narratives are true. Furthermore, the apparent implication in both of those narratives is that the North Atlantic should refrain from pursuing its interests in the zone to the south.

That is an idea that should be rejected on the basis that it leads only to paralysis in the political sphere, and a loss of initiative in the military sphere. Groups which argue that the North Atlantic should adopt a passive stance and not assert its interests, and those who place blame onto the wrong people, may mean well, but they do not realise that the narratives they are creating can lead to serious crises which may not have actually been intended by those dissenting groups.

The systems approach

From the perspective of systems thinking, the Atlantic power structure is made up of components including but not necessarily limited to:
  • its leadership and the messages communicated by the ideological state apparatus,
  • the resources required by that society,
  • the infrastructure and economy and the system of industrial relations which is continually reproducing itself,
  • the population’s policy preferences, the demography of that population, how those preferences manifest at the ballot box, and how politicians react to these preferences when trying to secure their own political careers,
  • the military leadership, the capabilities of the military, and the rules of engagement imposed upon it.
If a crisis of legitimacy on a domestic level were to exist for an extended period of a particular sort that would compromise the ability of the North Atlantic to access the resources and trade routes that it needs, then all parties - regardless of ideology or political affiliation - within the North Atlantic and among its allies would emerge as losers from that crisis, because it would become impossible to make military decisions and act on them within a reasonable time scale. This would have tangible economic effects that adversely affect the future.

While that paralysis would continue, the enemy would be able to get on the inside track of the decision-making process, as it would be able to act and react faster than the North Atlantic, which would constitute an advantage being given to the enemy.

No one wants that.

Overseas contingency operations

The War on Terror has a legitimacy, and in fact an inevitability to it as well. It was not a question of whether it would happen, but rather of how it would happen. As it would turn out - to use game theory terminology - it was the Islamists who defected first. Going back to the early 1990s, there was an imperative in the United States and United Kingdom to develop the energy supplies that would give the world market a greater diversity of supply and reduce the level of dependence on the Middle East. This would afford the market a buffer against oil shocks that tended historically to be trigged by political problems in that region.

Part of the solution to this, was a collection of plans to move oil across pipelines in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, into Pakistan, with the exit being at the port of Gwadar. These plans were proposed by Unocal Corporation, and supported by Delta Oil, Crescent Group and Gazprom. The problem they were having was that Afghanistan was in turmoil because of a civil war that was being waged in the country. Pakistan had previously been supporting the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the Cold War, and after the end of the Cold War they had been persuaded that they should actually go as far as to support the Taliban, as a type of ‘pipeline police’.

The Taliban were to be tolerated as ‘pipeline police’ because there was the view that the Northern Alliance was supported by India and Iran, and that if they built the pipeline with the Northern Alliance still in Kabul, they’d obstruct the construction process or destroy that section of the pipeline. For this reason, the consortium of oil companies along with the North Atlantic and Pakistan, more or less publicly supported Mullah Omar and the Taliban, against Ahmad Shah Masood who led the Northern Alliance.

Within the Islamic world, this had consequences that the Taliban reacted to in a way that was entirely treacherous and not without precedent. After the Taliban was enjoying more or less cordial relations with the developed world in 1996 after they had seized Kabul, Mullah Omar found himself exposed to something that all politicians are exposed to, namely journalism and public opinion. Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir visited and asked him questions about what was happening. When Mir met Mullah Omar in Kandahar, it is said that Omar asked Mir “why is it that you are writing against me?” And Mir responded that he did so because Omar “was supporting the Americans”.

Mullah Omar then responded, “If I fix your meeting with a big enemy of America, then will you write that I am not an American agent?”

Hamid Mir asked who that enemy was.

“Osama bin Laden.” was Mullah Omar’s response.

Yes, that is seriously what he said, and what he did. No one really should be surprised by this reality. The fact that the Taliban would be playing host to the leader of the ring who developed the plans for the 11 September 2001 attacks, even as the North Atlantic was not doing him any harm should not be surprising.

Islamists have agency and can take actions with or without your permission. They seek their own interests, and so the argument that somehow Islamists would absolutely behave themselves and that they wouldn’t strive to hurt you if you are only nice to them, doesn’t hold any water. It holds no water because the central case around which this argument is built, is one in which Islamists who had self-indoctrinated themselves with the ideas of Sayyid Qutb, and radical students of certain Madrassas set up by the Deobandis, were able to come together and facilitate attacks against New York City without having actually been ‘provoked’.

Many people like to say that the invasion of Iraq in 1991 was ‘provocative’ because it ‘killed Muslims’, and some readers may be thinking that right now. But again there is a logical problem, the problematic fact that the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein Al-Tikriti was a government which was absolutely hated by Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden had actually volunteered his services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1991 in that war, because he wanted to fight against the government of Iraq as well. He was disappointed to find that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia turned down his offer.

So will those who propagate the popular guilt narrative have to argue that the North Atlantic somehow ‘earned’ the hatred of Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups because the North Atlantic managed to attack something that Al-Qaeda hated, before Al-Qaeda themselves could attack it? Will they argue that somehow the North Atlantic ‘earned’ the hatred of Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups because the North Atlantic gave them foreign direct investment and support as the guardians-to-be of a pipeline that was intended to traverse Central Asia and South Asia up to the point of exit at the Pakistani seaport of Gwadar in the Indian Ocean?

No person among those Islamists would be capable of finding those things to be an ‘attack’ against themselves. So we have to look toward other reasons for why these people do the things that they do. And I think that all the readers know what those reasons are. It’s Islamic terrorism. It’s in the name.

An epochal crisis

Islamists feel that their economic and social relevance is being sidelined by the dominance of international finance capital and the national bourgeoisie of countries in the developing world who have been activated by the unbinding of the circle of North Atlantic finance that took place after the 1970s. After the 1970s, capital flowed out of the North Atlantic area and into the developing zones in the periphery.

As a result of that movement of capital, social transformations took place, which Islamist reactionaries of different sorts interpreted as being a threat to their own dominance over the civic spaces - some of these being countries, some of them being zones within countries - in the Middle East and Central Asia.

However, this chaotic process, out of which a new order will emerge, is entirely necessary and is justified by the role that the actors in the North Atlantic are playing. I use the word ‘justified’ not in the petty-moralist sense of the term, but rather, in the scientific and economic sense of the term. The international financial system exhibits its justification for existing - its historical role - through the fact that it takes its surplus wealth and uses it to wend its way through every corner of the earth looking for new ways to engender the development of productive forces. This is a role that it will continue to be justified in taking on, until such time as it exhausts its progressive potential and is necessarily sublated and superseded by new social and economic systems, ones which would be established on socialist or syndicalist foundations. There is considerable evidence since 2008 that the system of international investment is already approaching its structural limits, and that various actors are attempting to explore those limits. And that after the development and interconnectivity of South East Asia is completed, ‘zero-profit capitalism’ could next emerge.

Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera once wrote:
Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, 06 Jun 1934 wrote:
“No revolutionary event is or ever has been justified with respect to the preceding juridical order. Every political system that exists in the world, without exception, has been born in open strife with the political order that was in force at the time of its advent; for one of the things not included among the faculties of political orders is the faculty of making a will.”
Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, 25 Jan 1935 wrote:
“Rebellions are always the product of at least two ingredients: the first ingredient, all pervading, is an internal explanation, a want of interior raison d’├ętre in the existing regime. This must be present for a rebellion to be raised with any likelihood of success; merely in order that a number of people shall rise in an attempt at rebellion, there must be a certain discontentment, a lack of any vital reason for existence on the part of the regime against which the rebellion is raised. As to this there is no doubt; rebellion have never been raised except against regimes beginning to totter. On the other hand, it is necessary that there shall exist a historical energy which seizes upon this state of discouragement, this want of internal raison d’├ętre in the political state it seeks to assail, to launch the attack with more or less good fortune.”
Ethno-nationalists of course would be waiting for such an opportunity to come.

Islamists on the other hand, being the ridiculous reactionaries that they are, are neither in favour of the present system, nor are they in favour of any system based on modernist idea that might emerge after it. Islamists are retrogressive clericial-reactionaries who want to go back to the social order that existed in the 8th century CE, and who are willing to do virtually anything to make that happen.

No one wants to go back to the 8th century, except Islamists.

Mass immigration as a component of the crisis

This leads to the question which I’m sure you all saw coming from the beginning of this article. Knowing what is known, who in their right mind within the countries of the North Atlantic would then issue a mass-invite to the very population groups which are statistically more likely to contain Islamist reactionaries, while simultaneously being engaged in wars against those same reactionaries abroad in order to secure resources and trade routes?

Perhaps the same people who then would have the incredible gall to turn around and claim that mass migration of Muslims into the European Union is apparently ‘okay’, but that the tensions that occur on European soil and the acts of terror which are perpetrated, such as the 7/7 bombings and the 21/7 bombing attempt - the remembrance day of the former having passed just days ago - are somehow ‘not good reasons’ to stop importing Muslims, but are somehow instead a ‘reason’ to abandon the North Atlantic’s foreign policy preferences and abandon all its hard-won strategic outposts in the south?

No, there is no way that that kind of ‘argument’ could ever be credible. Ethno-nationalists should not accept that kind of defeatist viewpoint. I find it disconcerting that there are articles from the past which were posted on Majorityrights by Lasha Darkmoon and by J. Richards, in which they seem to play into exactly that kind of defeatism.

It remains a fact that the crisis of mass migration is threatening to transform Europe and undermine social cohesion, and the chief negative effect of this - aside from the domestic upheavals that have been well covered and well expounded upon by many already - is to impede the ability of the peoples of the North Atlantic to form a common security agenda for themselves.

There really is nothing more effective at transmuting a security agenda into concrete actions than the old-world idea of the nation-state, in contrasdiction to the new-world idea of the proposition nation. But that at the same time, those nation-states no longer have the scope to affect the world by themselves, which is why ethno-regionalism becomes extremely important.

To address Europe specifically, in order for ‘Europe’ to truly exist in the world, it has to be able to define itself for what it is, it has to be able to truly define ‘European-ness’ and define the borders of what ‘Europe’ is. It has to be able to work together on something and be able to say “we worked together to fight against this enemy, and this is the good result”, and it can only do that on the basis of a shared identity. Yes, much like the formation of traditional nation-states, a regional ‘European’ identity can only be forged in the crucible of shared interests, shared ideals, and of course, shared enemies.

Standing on the ground of reality

The unfortunate European tendency has very often since 1945 been to seek a transcendent and universal morality, a tendency to try to escape from action so as to escape from guilt for the outcomes of those actions. In order to control its own destiny as a continent, and for it to be a good trade partner for Asian countries, Europeans need to stop indulging in mawkish sentimentality and guilt narratives, and instead accept responsibility for themselves, no longer clinging to vague, ethereal and frankly unreal and incoherent ideas of ‘human rights’ and ‘tolerance’. It’s time for Europeans to look at the world in the context of straight power concepts.

Don’t be discouraged by how apparently unpopular straight power concepts - also known as reality - are today. Reality always catches up to people in the end, and no one should allow that moment to go to waste when it comes.

trade deals
The interests of Asia and those of the North Atlantic, fit together and complement each other
You know what works: Nation-states are a great repository of political experience and a great framework in which to coordinate actions, and regional organisations are good for pooling competencies and for leveraging the advantages of a single market.

And you know what’s right: Europe, whole and free, and Europe as a fantastic trade partner for North America and for Asia.

There are many domestic issues that I’m sure Majorityrights readers are eager to see changed. But when it comes to geostrategy, the geostrategic imperatives that presently exist would still be the same, there would be total continuity in that respect.

Ethno-nationalists should not be tempted to abandon their principles and their knowledge of what works and what’s right, especially not in a historical period where they will need those principles the most.

You should say to the Islamist enemy with a note of danger in your voice, “Tread softly, for you are treading on our dreams.”

About the European Genocide

via Thulean Perspective

About the worst genocide ever, that is still taking place as we speak.

Churchill — When Britain Said No

via The Occidental Observer

When it comes to stirring oratory, few speeches have the power to quicken the pulse like Winston Churchill’s “We shall fight on the beaches…”  from  June, 1940. Generations of British schoolchildren have learned how that voice, crackling over the airwaves, helped galvanise the nation to new heights of endurance in the struggle against an all-powerful foe.

Churchill’s grand aristocratic tones summoned up the spirit of British defiance from across the centuries. So British schoolchildren are taught anyway — and you still come across grey-haired veterans of those days who vividly remember where they were when they heard it on the wireless.

Shame then, that it was all a bit of a fraud.  For the recorded version of the speech we are all familiar with, was not made until nine years later at his Chartwell country residence with the old boy rumbling into a microphone while sitting up in his bed. (The original speech in the House of Commons was not recorded — extracts were read out by newsreaders).

That is one of the milder revelations in a bunker-buster of a BBC television program called Churchill: When Britain Said No  which told the story of how the victorious war time premier was overwhelmingly rejected at the 1945 general election.

Predictably, the keepers of the flame are outraged. The Winston Churchill Industry in both the USA and Britain have expressed their disgust that such a program could have been broadcast. A “hatchet job” opined Lee Pollock, director of the Winston Churchill Center in Chicago. In an article in The Spectator  Mr Pollock wrote that “When Britain Said No  is so one-sided and hysterical that it actually does a disservice to the revisionist cause.” Churchill’s family, too, were enraged and condemned the program as “designed to belittle Churchill’s record.”

You can easily understand the determination of the Churchill industry in wanting to protect the brand they have benefited from so handsomely. Winston Churchill Center chairman Laurence Geller received a CBE from Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, only three years ago.

But if anything, the BBC program was just too mild, for it ignored the far more important story in which Churchill’s name and reputation have been appropriated by the neoconservative cause. It ignored how his name has been used to smear President Obama, to hamper his attempts at an agreement with Iran, and to railroad the US into a war with Iran. It is the story of a massive public assault that has all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated media campaign.

But first let us look at the BBC program. The charge sheet against Churchill was a lengthy one and, this being the BBC, it was mainly from a left-wing perspective. There was his unabashed racism. And then there were his previous military disasters. There was his habit — at the height of the war — of being indisposed through drink. There was the deep hatred for him felt by the working class.


Quite the most arresting part of the program was newsreel footage of Churchill being booed off the stage at an election rally in East London two days before the 1945 general election. The police had to protect him from the crowd as he was sped away in a car.

In the end, Churchill’s achievement rests on five speeches in 1940 and 1941 and a determined refusal to consider repeated German offers of peace terms. It was this resistance to “appeasement” that the program returned to again and again as being the source of his greatness.

But here the program refused to acknowledge Churchill’s own act of appeasement — in allowing Stalin, the bloodiest dictator in modern history, to plunge much of Europe into communist tyranny. A despicable double-standard which most in Britain and the West have chosen to forget.

The final acid-tipped judgement went to historian John Charmley: “Churchill was the prime minister at the last time that Britain mattered to the world. He then spent the post-war years writing this up in a series of best-selling memoirs every page of which, incidentally, broke the Official Secrets Act, so no one else had access to the material to tell the story in a different way; so the combination of these two things make a virtually unassailable myth.” As Churchill himself said: “history will bear me out because I will write the history.” Churchill’s book The Second World War ran to six volumes.

Of course, none of this is news to students of revisionist history but to the general viewer, marinated in the received wisdom, it must have come as a shock. It is doubtful this program would have been broadcast even 10 years ago. The myth of Churchill and the “Good War” was too potent a symbol of the post-war liberal consensus.

But the BBC program stayed far away from the much more recent and politically controversial area.  For as with the Holocaust, it is the way in which the symbolism of Churchill was appropriated and abused today that is more revealing.

It was Churchill’s official and most prolific biographer — and secular Jew — Sir Martin Gilbert, who died earlier this year, who, for many years, has wheeled out Churchill in the service of Israel. As Gilbert’s massive bibliography reveals, the main themes of his writing were Israel, the Holocaust, and Winston Churchill. He highlighted Churchill’s support for Zionism frequently.

But while Gilbert helped lay the foundation of Churchill’s new role as defender of Israel it is the neocons who have taken this to new heights. In recent years he has been adopted by the likes of Douglas Feith, Charles Krauthammer and Irving Kristol who regard him as a “founding father” of their movement.

Indeed, The Weekly Standard, edited by Bill Kristol (Irving’s son) anointed him Man of the Century and earlier this year compared him to that other warmongering statesman Benjamin Netanyahu.

This phenomenon was analysed by Michael Lind in The Spectator:
While most Americans think of Churchill as the foe of the Nazis, many right-wing Jews in the United States and Israel revere him for his role in promoting European-Jewish colonisation of Palestine at the expense of the Arabs. When he was colonial secretary in the early 1920s, Churchill hived off Jordan from the rest of the Palestinian mandate. For years, American neocons, disseminating the propaganda of the Israeli Right, have claimed that Jordan or the ‘Trans-Jordan’ is, or should be, the only ‘Palestinian’ state. This Likud party propaganda line is echoed by non-Jewish neocons including William Bennett, who wrote in an essay entitled ‘Standing with Israel’, ‘There is no reason Jews should not be able to live in the West Bank.’ The fact that the UN partition of Palestine in 1947–48 superseded all previous British decisions is ignored by radical Jewish and Christian Zionists in the US and Israel.
In a speech to the House of Commons on 26 January 1949, Churchill repeated the Israeli lie that the Palestinians had voluntarily fled the country: ‘All this Arab population fled in terror behind the advancing forces of their own religion.’ The Israeli historian Benny Morris, on the basis of Israeli archives, has shown how the Israeli government carried out a premeditated policy of deliberate ethnic cleansing during the war. When he turned 80 in 1954, the state of Israel sent Churchill a floral arrangement in the shape of a cigar.
It should be no surprise, then, that the neocon cult of Churchill flourishes in Israel as well as in the US. Shortly before he was appointed as senior director for Near Eastern and North African affairs at the National Security Council — a post that gave him responsibility for Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Syria and Iran — Elliott Abrams gave a speech comparing Ariel Sharon to Winston Churchill. ‘Sharon’s no Churchill,’ complained Don Feder, another neoconservative, on 15 March 2002. ‘Ariel Sharon has a split personality. He wants to be both Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain. His unilateral concessions, his unwillingness to treat Zion’s fight for survival as the war it is and the weakness he exhibits to a remorseless foe have his country on the edge of extinction.’ Yes, that’s right — Israel, in 2002, according to this typical American neocon, was on the edge of extinction! Fortunately, according to Feder, there was a Churchill in Israel: ‘Bibi [Netanyahu] waits in the wings….’ Whether or not Sharon or Netanyahu are Churchill, Yasser Arafat and any enemy of the state of Israel is Hitler — on that all neocons can agree.
The neocon cult of Churchill came in useful in providing cover during the slaughter of Palestinians during last year’s Operation Protective Edge as this Daily Telegraph article from mid-2014 shows.

But the comparison really began to appear with suspicious regularity beginning in January this year; then it built in intensity until March when Netanyahu addressed Congress. Gideon Rachman’s adoring account in the Financial Times was typical.
When Benjamin Netanyahu rises to speak in Congress later on Tuesday he will become the first foreign leader since Winston Churchill to speak before Congress three times. John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House, apparently intends to mark the occasion by presenting the Israeli prime minister, with a bust of Churchill.


Noah Rayman made the same glowing comparison in Time. The Huffington Post, USA Today and others followed suit.  In the Washington Post , Jennifer Rubin switched between the Churchill and Chamberlain comparisons depending on whether she was writing or tweeting. For Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner , the visit was an echo of Churchill. Jonathan Freedland in the New York Review of Books too saw the Churchill comparison. Bill Kristol tweeted the words “Churchill and appeasement.” Charles Krauthammer never seems to tire of making this comparison and did it again in the Washington Post.

On and on it went, to be repeated in the New York Observer and the Jerusalem Post. A New York rabbi even took out an advert in the New York Times telling Obama ‘not to be like Chamberlain’. A congressman made the Churchill/Netanyahu comparison with the obvious implication for Obama. Even Sean Hannity repeated the same script. For Hannity, Netanyahu’s U.S. visit was on a par with the Second Coming of Jesus.

This wasn’t just lazy hacks taking the easiest spoon-fed angle. It seems to have been a co-ordinated attack designed to pressure the Obama Administration into war with Iran.
So, for some people Churchill has been more useful dead than alive. And it is not just in the US that Churchill’s name has been invoked in service of doubtful causes. In Britain we are suddenly learning that Churchill would have backed Britain’s absorption into the European Union.

This claim was first made by Professor Vernon Bogdanor and repeated by pro-EU voices such as the BBC and  EU propagandists such as Jon Danzig who describes himself as formerly an “investigative journalist” at the BBC. However many prominent non-Jewish Conservatives have poured scorn on the idea.

Another organisation that burnishes the Churchill myth for its own ends is the Simon Wiesenthal Center. In 2011 they released their own documentary called Winston Churchill: Walking with Destiny

It was the latest in a series of Holocaust-themed films which have been produced by the Center’s founder Rabbi Marvin Hier and narrated by big names, such as Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman and Richard Dreyfus. Unusually for a documentary, it  had no trouble finding extensive distribution in movie houses across the USA.

The film was narrated by Ben Kingsley and focused very tightly on Churchill’s “support for the Jews” during the rise of Hitler. Churchill’s Jewish official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, served as a historical consultant and is featured prominently in the production.

So what is Winston Churchill’s real legacy for Britain? To get an answer, consider the words of Chinese politician Zhou Enlai who, in 1950, when asked what he thought was the outcome of the French Revolution, replied that it was “too early to say.”

Now, a mere 70 years since the end of World War II, we are beginning to clearly see the results of the triumphant liberal hegemony for which Winston Churchill made Britain safe. It took a couple of generations for the World War II generation to die off, but now liberal progressivism is getting into its stride and most of White Europe is reeling under waves of Third World immigration.

The real legacy of Winston Churchill is growing more visible on the streets of Europe every day. It is very obvious now that demolition of this man’s grotesquely inflated reputation and the “Good War” myth that goes with it, should be a priority for all who believe in the future of the West.

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, Part 4

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

A German White book from
the First World War, 1914.
Carolyn reads chapters 7 and 8, having to do with how Bureau investigations were used by the German government and by the Wehrmacht.

Chapt. 7 talks about White Books and White Papers which were put out by the German Foreign Office. One unexpected and disappointing development was that when photographs of the atrocities committed on Germans in Poland were published in the White Books, there was such an outcry over the "horror pictures" that Germany stopped adding those images. Naturally, since the Germans didn't commit mutilations on their enemies, the other side didn't have such pictures to print. 

Chapt. 8 is about the use of Bureau investigations for "Diplomatic Protection" for prisoners of war, the wounded, medical personnel, etc. A number of examples of protests are given, on both the West and East Fronts (South too). Something I did not know: "thousands of German POW's had already been liquidated by Soviet forces in the first weeks of fighting." 47m36s

More on Negative-Sum Publishing

via Henry Dampier

Vox Day has a good post today about how mainstream publishing has become a negative sum game.

He’s mostly writing about science fiction, which I don’t read nearly as much as I used to during childhood, but it’s also applicable to the broader publishing industry. Vox touches on the demographic issue, but I’d like to go into a bit more detail here.

Anglo culture, like German culture, is hyper-literate. To the extent that both of those cultures are failing to reproduce themselves effectively has clear impacts on the demand for the written word. Mexicans love Telemundo more than they like PBS. A website like Buzzfeed is the Telemundo version of the New York Times. A shrinking and aging demographic is less capable of supporting growth in discretionary industries.

Highly literate culture that produces newspapers, literary magazines, and novels is as North European as tacos and empenadas are for South Americans. When a people diminishes, we should also expect the diminishment of their cultural expressions, both domestically and internationally. Liberals will often lament the decline in, say, newspaper readership, without connecting that decline to the decline in the consumer base who actually wants to participate in that kind of culture.

These cultural expressions are a way that a given population talks to itself, understands itself, and coordinates. As that population becomes less coherent and willing to sustain itself, its cultural expressions must also shrink.

Yet addressing this directly is very hard for people with a more liberal mentality. This is one of the reasons why you’ll see so many prospective writers waste years of their lives and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuing MFAs and going to novel-writing workshops, in the hopes that more certificates and training programs will cure a fundamental lack of demand for the products.

More-educated novelists don’t solve the problem of a demographic crunch in the types of people who are apt to buy those novels.

Only White people — and the occasional affirmative action hire — would even think of buying an MFA’s novel. It’s just not a major art form outside a rather limited cultural bubble. There’s a reason why Africans are so absent from the long list of great authors — novel-writing was useless for Africans for most of their historical existance, as issues of bare survival were more important to them, and they never really had the level of development to support that sort of cultural expression, and aren’t likely to anytime soon, either.

Further, with higher education teaching the native stock that their culture is evil and degenerate — instead encouraging people to consume other cultural forms from the third world — any demand that might have been generated for distinctly Anglo-American culture gets dissipated. It becomes more important to be politically correct than it does to be conversant in the Western tradition and some of its newer speculative offshoots.

Liberals often profess to care a great deal about culture — they will often spend more of their lives shaping the culture than expanding the raw human material that makes that culture relevant — while simultaneously undermining the carrying capacity of the societies that they enjoy political dominance over.

You can’t promote literacy and literate culture while also suppressing the fertility of the populations which have a track record of running that kind of culture.

We could also say that this sort of over-reach is perhaps a result of excessive literacy and abstraction. Having developed advanced forms of cultural expression and communication of accurate knowledge, those expressions came to be more important than the reality which they were supposed to express, which has lead to our current predicament.

Greece Is the Way We Are Feeling!

via Western Spring

According to those who promote European union as an idealistic aim and those who promote the EU as the embodiment of that ideal, such a union is intended to be beneficial for all concerned – a state of affairs in which each member state is stronger and more secure because of the fraternal support provided by the others. However this does not seem to be working out too well for Greece in her hour of need.

This week we have seen the mask slip — the true face of the European Union (EU) has been exposed for all to see, and it has not been pretty, nor just, nor noble. We have seen the people of Greece humiliated through the thinly veiled, hostile imposition of punitive austerity measures in retribution for their temerity in rejecting previously proposed austerity measures and even considering the option of withdrawing altogether from the Eurozone.

Greek Debt Crisis 3This blow has hit the Greek people hard as they have been led to believe there are real alternatives to severe austerity and the left-wing government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his party, Syriza, pledged to defy the EU in demanding a just and tolerable solution to the country’s financial problems. As it is, Tsipras, emboldened by his people’s 61% rejection of the earlier bail-out proposals, tweaked the noses of the pompous Eurocrats only for his defiance to collapse at the eleventh hour in contrite supplication to the will of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and her Davros-like Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble.

As I have pointed out in an earlier article, the financial difficulties facing Greece at this time, may be marginally more the result of Greek profligacy than the financial difficulties faced by other European states, but the root cause of Greek indebtedness is twofold; the ubiquitous but corrupt system of Fractional Reserve Banking in which new money is ‘borrowed into existence’; and the fraudulent peddling of junk-bonds and their derivatives as ‘low-risk’ investments by US bankers, primarily at the behest of the American government in the decades leading up to the 2008-09 Credit Crisis.

Grexit 6If EU leaders were to act in what they proclaim is the ‘spirit of the European Union’ – a spirit of ‘ever closer union’ moving towards the formation of a federal European super-state, one would expect them to regard the debts of any one member state, as a component part of the total debt burden shouldered by all of the EU member states collectively, in the same way that our Westminster government has over the centuries since the formation of the United Kingdom, regarded debt incurred through public expenditure in Wales, or in Cornwall or Yorkshire, as part of a collective national debt owed by the United Kingdom as a whole and the responsibility of the United Kingdom as a whole. However, the EU has not reacted as if this is the case.

Instead, the member states of the EU have distanced themselves and failed to acknowledge any shared responsibility for the Greek debt and the Greeks are being forced to fend for themselves, despite not having control of their currency.

Morally and in consideration of the Greek people entering into monetary union with the other member states of the Eurozone; with a shared currency, the Euro; and with a border-less single market, the EU as a whole should regard themselves as ‘jointly and severally’ liable for any debts incurred and bail-out the Greeks without recrimination. This is how a political and economic union should work, but such a union should also be a fiscal union with a single taxation system and centralised control of public spending by the various member states.

Greek Debt Crisis 4When a nation forgoes control of its own currency, and enters into a federal arrangement with other nations, in which there is a ‘single market’ and in which there are no internal controls over the movement of goods, or capital, or people, it is rather like an individual giving away control of his or her own bank account and trying to manage their finances through a joint bank account together with a group of other people, each of which has the ability to deposit or withdraw money as they choose.

Unless one of the parties to this joint banking arrangement is nominated to act as the ‘Treasurer’ of the ‘partnership’ and administers the group’s finances as a whole, at some point it will inevitably be discovered that rather more money has been withdrawn and spent than planned and as a consequence the ‘partnership’ will be in danger of breaching its overdraft arrangements and of possibly not meeting its financial obligations.

This is why in English Commercial Law all ‘business partners’ are held ‘jointly and severally liable’ for the debts of a partnership, so there can be no wrangling over who is responsible. All of the partners involved in a partnership are legally responsible for their collective debts, even if those debts may have been incurred through the actions of just one partner.

Just as with a business partnership, the member states of the EU are ‘partners’ involved in a ‘joint enterprise’ – to create a single European state — and they have joint banking arrangements and should morally therefore be ‘jointly and severally liable’ for the debts collectively incurred by them, both individually and as a group.

This should be heralded as one of the primary and most fundamental tenets of a political and economic union such as the EU aspires to be, however the current problems experienced by Greece in her relationship with her European partners, demonstrate that such a state of affairs does not exist, and the reasons for this are twofold and are fundamentally issues of honesty:

Firstly, in order for the EU to function as a ‘partnership’ in which the ‘partners’, i.e. the member states of the union enjoy greater financial and economic security as a result of the pooling of their resources, there needs to be centralised control of taxation and of public spending throughout the union and this would require the EU to become a single state in every sense, with the concomitant loss of statehood and/or nationhood by all of the individual member states.

Grexit 2While a single currency has been established throughout the Eurozone, and the European Central Bank has been established to control  the issuing of new money, none of the nations comprising the member states have so far been prepared to ‘go the whole hog’ — to surrender to the EU, full fiscal control, that is, control of taxation and public spending – and this is because the EU has been built upon deceit. It is an aspiring super-state that dare not speak its name.
The various peoples of Europe generally feel well disposed towards each other and are happy to enjoy the benefits of economic co-operation, but there is little desire for the kind of ‘ever closer’ political and economic union that our political elites desire, nor for the loss of national sovereignty that such a union would require.

Therefore, ever since the EU was formed, it has proceeded towards political and economic union through stealth, at each stage denying its ultimate objective, because that objective was not and never has been politically acceptable to the vast majority of the people of the member states concerned. This is why Edward Heath deliberately lied to the House of Commons and to the British people when he told us that membership of the ‘Common Market’, as the EU was then called, would not involve any loss of national sovereignty, and this is why successive Labour and Conservative administrations have systematically lied to us at every step and turn along the way, each time denying that the ultimate objective of the EU project would be a total loss of national sovereignty, a total loss of nationhood and our total absorption into a European super-state.

In order to maintain their pretence, the governments (the political elites) of the member states have so far retained fiscal control, control of taxation and their individual public spending, and this is why they cannot afford to respond as appropriate to the needs of the ailing Greek economy.

Grexit 1Having given away control of their currency, the Greeks have been unable to do what we British and the Americans did following the Credit Crisis, in order to lighten the debt burden we carry. They have been unable to employ Quantitative Easing (QE) — that is the printing of a quantity of new bank notes which are used to pay off a proportion of the national debt. The Greeks can only benefit from QE if the European Central Bank agrees to the printing of Euro bank notes which can be given to the Greeks to pay off some of their national debt, but the European Central Bank will not do this, because it would dangerous to do so without full fiscal control over the entire EU — control that the European Central Bank can only have if the EU assumes full nation status and dominion over all of the member states – something that is still politically unacceptable to the European electorate.

The second issue relating to honesty, or rather the lack of it, and serving as an impediment to the EU responding appropriately to the plight of the Greeks, is the failure of our political elites to address the issue of our corrupt fractional reserve banking system, which has been the primary source of the debt based financial problems faced by all of the member states of the EU as well as most of the nations of the rest of the world.

Our current banking system, which was established towards the end of World War II and in the early post-war period, in conferences held at Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods, is one in which banks have the ability to create credit out of nothing in the form of ‘electronic money’ and in which governments are normally only allowed to expand the money supply in their respective countries by literally borrowing that money into existence. Through the Bank of International Settlements, set up following the Bretton Woods Conference, in which the US Dollar is regarded as the international ‘reserve currency’, the power to effectively control the banking systems of the world was granted to the US Federal Reserve, the US central bank which is a privately owned corporation, owned and controlled by a number of merchant banks, and which is constitutionally beyond US governmental control. The head of the Federal Reserve is therefore able to control the money supply of the world, and as we all know, ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune’. An understanding of this is crucial to an understanding of international power politics.

Sadly very few politicians actually understand the flawed nature of our banking system, and those that do are all too often in thrall to the powerful moneyed interests that control the Federal Reserve. This fact was amply demonstrated on 11th June 2015, when UKIP MP Douglas Carswell very bravely raised the issue of fractional reserve banking on the BBc’s flagship politics programme, Question Time, only to have the matter ignored by the other pundits present, but not before the host, David Dimbleby admitted he had no idea what fractional reserve banking is!

If David Dimbleby, who has had the opportunity to question and speak at length with all of the major establishment politicians in Britain over several decades has not heard of fractional reserve banking before, this gives us a fairly strong indication that no-one has ever mentioned it before, almost certainly because they either know nothing about it, or because they don’t want the public to find out about it or gain an understanding of it.

Debt accumulated through our current banking system, which could be avoided entirely if new money was printed into existence in the form of bank notes rather than borrowed into existence in the form of electronic data entries, and the fact that the German finance minister and the heads of the European Central Bank have not been sympathetic to the plight of the Greek people, and the fact that the Greek Prime Minister made no headway at all in his attempts to have a proportion of Greek debt written off, demonstrates clearly a lack of appreciation of the iniquitous nature of our current banking system and shows that the European political elite are either ignorant of the flaws in our banking system or committed to concealing them. Whichever it is, they are either incompetent or they are crooks and it is deplorable that they have responded to the dire plight of the Greeks in the manner of a loan shark, offering nothing more than a ‘restructuring’ of the current debt arrangement in such a way that their victim will never have the opportunity to be debt free, as they struggle to make ends meet on the ‘never, never’!

Interestingly, the Greek people have not reacted meekly to the climb-down performed by Alexis Tsipras, many viewing the bail-out terms as a betrayal, and as soon as the terms were announced the Greek civil service unions announced a strike aimed at placing pressure upon the Greek government to once again stiffen its resolve against the austerity measures being proposed. It will be interesting to see whether the current Greek government survives or whether Tsipras will be forced to call a snap general election. Either way, the current situation must present a immense opportunity for Golden Dawn to capitalise on the widespread sense of betrayal and humiliation felt by the Greek people. Let us hope so because this crisis could provide that ‘SHTF’ moment that so many nationalists dream of and it could provide the historic opportunity for Golden Dawn to rise from the ashes of their mass arrests and wrest control of Greece from the feeble hands of Syriza. Let us hope so!