Aug 10, 2015

On the Current State of the Illegal Invasion into Europe

via The European Guardian

For immigrants who wish to enter Europe illegally there are eight main routes as described by the European border management agency, Frontex.

The journey for mainland Europe passes mainly through three routes- central Mediterranean route, eastern Mediterranean route and the western Balkan route. In order to repel the flow of illegal immigrants, countries such as Hungary, United Kingdom, Greece, Spain and Bulgaria have been erecting or fortifying walls.

With the recent news from Cueta, Melilla and Calais where illegal immigrants tried to rush the borders in order to enter either Spain (Cueta and Melilla) from Morocco or else the United Kingdom via France (Calais), the migration issue has resurfaced as a top priority in the EU after it was shadowed by the Greek Crisis for weeks.

The migration issue was put into spotlight after Italy, Spain and Greece voiced their anger towards the EU where they were left without any choice but to accept these illegal immigrants coming into their countries mainly by boats although they have financial problems. The crisis spiralled to the top of the European Union agenda in April after 800 immigrants lost their lives due to a massive shipwreck. Meetings were held between the European Union nations were it was concluded the need for relocation of around 60,000 refugees across the European Union countries.

Even though more than 715,000 people have applied for asylum in the EU during the past twelve months and the Calais crisis, European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday said that EU governments have a duty to help the flood of migrants arriving in Europe stating:
“You (EU member states) must not become blinded by populist thought which is present in every country.”
The migration issue will be pushed further into the spotlight after the biggest incident since the April incident just happened today were a boat full with 400 migrants capsized 22 nautical miles off the coast of Libya with 50 migrants already declared dead. Also in the Calais crisis, Frontex will be guarding the borders and deporting back the migrants who manage to make it to British soil. This move by Frontex took place after 600 people were found in the area of the Calais tunnel trying to cross the channel to the United Kingdom.

The stance on immigration is different when comparing European countries to the European Union. France, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Greece, United Kingdom, Malta, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Bulgaria and lately Germany don’t want to take in more refugees as they can’t cope with these people while the official stance of the EU is to accept everyone and then the possibility of relocation to ease the pressure from these countries hosting the illegal immigrants.

So who does control the borders of countries? The nations themselves or the European Union as a whole? If the migration issue is to be resolved once and for all, borders should be enforced by the nation states and a push back policy applied towards the so called political asylum refugees which are mostly economical and illegal immigrants.

Britain’s Illegal Invasion Summer: Traitors and Incentives for Treason

via The Occidental Observer

What do you do when a story gets so big that you can ignore it no longer — you police the language around it by deploying those tried and trusty weapons; shame and demonization.

Prime Minister David Cameron learned this lesson the hard way on the unlikely location of the roof of the Stock Exchange in Ho Chi Minh City when he was finally cornered into saying something about the growing deluge of illegal immigrants, traversing the English channel on the back of lorries and trains, overwhelming Britain’s flimsy border defences and disappearing into the English countryside.
Look, this is very testing, I accept that, because you have got a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean, seeking a better life, wanting to come to Britain because Britain has got jobs, it’s got a growing economy, it’s an incredible place to live.
Then the world tumbled in on him.  The Refugee Council, the leader of the Labour Party and many others fell on him like jackals on a wounded antelope — all because he used the “dehumanising” word “swarmed.” The BBC, Mirror Telegraph and Guardian  thought the PM’s language angle so hugely important that they diverted their attention from the real crisis of thousands of immigrants trying to illegally get into Britain every night.

The “anti-immigration rhetoric” meme has been building in strength just as the border crisis itself has been growing. Late last year the Archbishop of Canterbury said he was worried about anti-immigrant rhetoric.  An academic at the London School of Economics has been complaining about the same thing. The Guardian has been whining about irresponsible rhetoric around the Royal Navy’s picking up boatloads of Africans in the Mediterranean. Last month the Guardian was again running the same nagging complaint.

So is it semantics that lead to people living in misery in a refugee camp in Calais, or cause illegal immigrants to die making futile dangerous attempts to cross into Britain? It is those who use “dehumanizing” language who are responsible for that? Of course, it has nothing to do with the flimsy borders and guilt-ridden political class unwilling to shut down the rewards of doing whatever they can to get to the UK.

Jewish writers have been at the forefront of the complaints about the tone of the commentary. In the Guardian Jonathan Freedland wrote that when it comes to immigration “we have to change the way we talk about it.”  Nick Cohen said that the word ‘swarmed’ was an “inhuman comparison”. While in the Telegraph neocon Janet Daley was railing against “anti-immigrant rhetoric” on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the Telegraph another Jewish journalist, Emma Barnett, is deeply concerned about the way ordinary Britons are talking about the immigrant flood. She thinks it is “dehumanizing” and chides the selfish British for only thinking about themselves while ignoring the real victims.
Just 21 miles from Britain there is a jungle. Or to give it its full name: Jungle Camp. This is where hundreds of displaced people from all over the world live in some of the most wretched conditions. Stuck in a no-man’s land in Calais, they are living in temporary cardboard structures and surviving on porridge made out of milk and soggy bread. Not that you will probably have paid them much attention over the last week.
The “Jungle” is a refugee camp near Calais called Jungle 2 which is now home to thousands of displaced Middle Easterners and Africans in transit to Britain and it is the scene of frequent riots and gang fights such as when knife-wielding Eritreans clash with Sudanese, for example. A sympathetic portrait of the place is made in this BBC documentary which still cannot conceal the fact that most of these “refugees” are fit, well-nourished, young males.

There is no big mystery about what is happening here — it is an attempt to suppress free speech by labelling it as “hate speech.” By rigorously policing what can and cannot be said, the left have been able to demonize any opposition as “far right.” Anyone who utters even one word of objection is a moral pariah before they begin. Again we are reminded that the West is dying because of they have internalized guilt that is being continuously spewed by the mainstream media. No other culture does this.

The media are helped in this task by a stage army of state-funded supporters who scream ‘foul’ if anyone says a word out of place. Foremost among these is Zoe Gardner who is the TV face of a taxpayer funded outfit called Asylum Aid.

She is photogenic, well-spoken and generous with her opinion that Britain should be taking in far more asylum seekers.  Indeed the BBC seems to have her on permanent speed dial as the voice  and  face of caring, migrant-loving Britain.

She is part of a very incentivised industry.  Her charity is basically a front operation for lawyers who can charge the taxpayer vast sums for defending migrant deportations and for arranging housing, further education etc.

There are many organisations like this. Migrant Help Dover offers help with housing, education and employment. Calais Migrant Solidarity has its own permanent offices at the Calais encampment and openly assists bogus asylum claimants.  It distributes flyers warning that British Home Office officials “are not your friends” and will “try and refuse your claim and refuse you.” It includes a list of various questions that British officials ask migrants to discover whether they are genuine asylum seekers or not.  These include knowing the currency, the name of the president or even the lay-out of the capital of the country you claim to come from. “Prepare for the interview and know your story well” the documents advice.

Behind each of these organisations is a herd of lawyers each keen to get their snouts into the huge trough of government money available through Britain’s legal aid system — a form of lawyer’s welfare. Mass immigration is a cause for which the entire legal profession has an abiding enthusiasm. Activist judges seem determined to sabotage deportations with one perverse decision after another.

You can rely on the media not to mention the dog that does not bark. For there is a huge puzzle about this crisis which was summed up by a commenter in a newspaper forum who wrote:
Despite all the problems, I am amazed how little is done to prevent and detect the migrants. The fence is easily breached, so why not a barrier of rolls of barbed or razor wire inside the fence? This could be alongside the rail line and would deter even the most determined.
Whilst it is clearly easy to break open the doors of trucks, I would have thought that any truck operating on this route would be fitted we heat detector alarms or CCVT cameras, which are very cheap these days. Also, once the doors are locked and having checked there are no intruders, a poster should be pasted across the doors stating (in several languages) warning that if the poster is broken the truck would be checked and any occupants ejected.
Any immigrants who make it to Britain should always be returned to France, as this is where they should claim asylum, or in any other Schengen country. We are not in Schengen (free trade partnership) and it is not our responsibility if the “Free movement” ends up in Calais.
All good questions that no-one in the mainstream media or politics is asking. Instead the rhetoric concentrates on the “tone” of the actual coverage. Last Monday 2,000 attempts to run the Channel tunnel were defeated followed by a similar number the following night. A total of 37,000 have been prevented this year alone — who knows how many were successful. A Sudanese man became the ninth to die trying to make the crossing. The pictures have indeed been dramatic.

And what is David Cameron actually doing about this? Well, being Cameron, he talks a good game. He has said in speech after speech that Britain is not a soft touch. But he also says the EU prevents him for banning benefits to migrants.

Every expression of protest from local White parents has been labelled as “far right” and extremist.”  A local demonstration by 50 parents against the imminent opening of an immigrant detention centre in Whitstable was typical.  The only paper that reported it, Scotland’s Sunday Herald framed it as a “racist backlash” threat to the safety of vulnerable asylum seekers from the “far right.” The Kent local weekly press and BBC radio never even mentioned it at all.

The UN’s Special Representative for Migration is Peter Sutherland (see also Tobias Langdon’s recent TOO article) who is also head of something called the Global Forum on Migration and Development. The BBC and the Guardian gave this unelected figure a platform to say that “Anybody who thinks that by erecting borders or fences in some way a particular state can be protected from alleged ‘floods’ — which are anything but floods — of migrants is living in cloud cuckoo land.”

You could rely on the British media never to remind people of Mr Sutherland’s previous pronouncement on immigration when the former Goldman Sachs banker (who made £125 million from the Goldman IPO) said that the EU should do it’s best to “undermine the homogeneity” of its member states.

Trumped by the Real Thing: The Ron Paul Revolution Is Dead

via TradYouth

Pinpointing the exact moment that a human is dead is a tricky medical conundrum. Doubly so for political movements. Perhaps we should wait until Rand Paul’s campaign folds up its tent. Perhaps we should wait until Dr. Paul heads off to the one place with more gold than his investment portfolio. Maybe we should call it when Jack Hunter announces in his grating moralistic tone that he’s had a change of heart about his libertarian principles.

Rats are, after all, the surest indicator that a ship is drowning.

I consider last week’s Republican debate the moment that the paleo-libertarian insurgency died. This moment, Rand Paul’s big debut as a presidential candidate, was supposed to be a crowning moment for a revolution which was decades in the making. It didn’t only end with a metaphorical whimper, but with Rand literally whimpering about constitutional errata after the American mind, the debate audience, and even his corps of notoriously rabid supporters had already moved on to bigger and brighter things.

The biggest and brightest thing on the stage last night was, of course, Donald Trump. Trump isn’t what we’ve been hoping for, which is a national populist challenge to the status quo, but he does represent a different sort of populist challenge to the Beltway establishment. Trump is an American oligarch who has stepped out from behind the curtain and invited you to vote directly for him.

In a more honest election, Trump would be standing at the podium alongside the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg; a devious and decrepit coven of cannibal capitalists and Jewish financiers who place their bets on charismatic goyim like gamblers at the horse track. When analyzing the actual men with power rather than their interchangeable political puppets, Donald Trump is perhaps the most virtuous, least crude, and least dangerous man in contention.
All of the other candidates, including Rand Paul, are stand-ins for the interests of the oligarchs who operate American politics. Even when they have their own ideas, as the Paul Dynasty surely does, the American political system runs on big money, money that the Paul family simply doesn’t have. The Ron Paul Revolution has soared all the way up from its very humble beginnings in the backwaters of American fringe politics, only to finally slam into a ceiling on libertarian ideology in America; the fact that actual rich people don’t actually subscribe to richpeopleism.

Actual rich people only wish for more liberty when it makes them richer, then wish for less liberty when that’s what makes them richer.

Rand Paul’s libertarianism is the purest distillation of the mercantilist theory undergirding the American system. It is the Masonic dream that the peasant merchant’s wealth can triumph over both throne and altar. Warlords, military dictators, and emperors find the radix of their power in force. Priests and bureaucrats find the radix of their power in influence, institutions, and traditions. What came into full bloom with the French and American Revolutions is a relatively new power dynamic where wealth rather than martial strength or traditional hierarchy, is the sole radix of power.

While the Paul Dynasty may be the ultimate standard-bearers of the theory that the people with the gold should make the rules, Donald Trump stands before America in practice as that man with the gold who makes the rules. The libertarian vision of lowering taxes, regulations, and restrictions on the pursuit of wealth arrives at its apex in the personage of Donald Trump. Shred your silly Constitution and set aside your abstract ideologies. Behold the messianic arrival of America in human form: shamelessly greedy, beholden to no man, lacking in self-restraint, bursting with animal vitality, and invading and conquering you as an act of love. Vote Trump!

Rand Paul is a bull prepper for the West’s gentile oligarchs, and it’s only fitting that he take a seat in the corner and enjoy watching his bull ruin America. Why vote for Ayn Rand when you can vote for Howard Roark?

The Alternative Right: An Outsider's Assessment

via Alternative Right

As most of our readers know (but some newbies to our virtual pages may not be aware), Alternative Right is far from being the entirety of the modern-day movement (or constellation of movements, or loose confederation of movements) known generally as the "alternative right." 
So what, exactly is the alt-right, broadly speaking, and how, and why, and to what end?
A Canadian blogger named J.J. McCullough has taken a stab at answering this admittedly dicey and ambiguous question. His assessment is worth reading, whatever you may think of his mustache, hair, and taste in interior design. McCullough writes:
The "Alternative Right," or more commonly, the "alt right" is a diverse assortment of people, mostly online, who identify as right-wingers but consider themselves either opposed to, or profoundly alienated from mainstream American conservatism — usually because they view it as being too liberal, or preoccupied with the wrong issues.

The "alt right" exists mostly in the form of an archipelago of blogs, podcasts, and social media accounts, many of which center around a single pseudonymous commentator. The ideologies espoused by "alt right" types can vary greatly, but broadly speaking includes certain sorts of extreme libertarians, immigration critics and "race realists" (basically intellectual racists and anti-semites), "neo-reactionaries" (who argue against democracy, human rights, and other manefestations of modernist philosophy), and anti-feminists, including some of the "Men's Rights" crowd. But there is also a more generic or moderate flavor of alt right thought that may not fully embrace any of the above agendas, but still be sympathic to their contrarian messages of skepticism towards prevailing conventional wisdom on matters like race, gender, and electoral politics.

A lot of alt-right commentary tends to be more easily defined in terms of what it opposes than what it supports. Its main subjects of scorn tend to be out-of-touch, left-wing elites in politics, business, academia, and the mainstream media who they believe to be actively ruining society through their aggressive embrace of feminist, multicultural, and post-modernist ideas. I would say the alt right is primarily about cultural issues, and less interested in economic policy or public policy in general. Views on foreign policy tend to be all over the place, and the topic is often engaged with mostly as a prism for understanding (and critiquing) foreign cultures. 

The alt right is an interesting, creative, growing intellectual movement within broader American conservatism. It appears to be led, and most enthusiastically supported by young white men, who could rise to become an important force within Republican politics and Republican-aligned media. Already we are seeing some "mainstream" conservative publications and institutions — particularly Brietbart and the American Enterprise Institute — coming under greater sway of the alt right, as a new generation of young, web-savvy conservatives begin to rise to prominance within them. Alt right fans are passionate and energized, and represent an attractive demographic of readers, activists, contributors, consumers, and voters for any savvy conservative leader to harness. 
 
At the same time, much of the alt right is defined primarily by their alienation from mainstream American politics and philosophy, with some corners possessing unapologetically hostile views towards American society and even America itself. And of course, as mentioned, there is a very real faction of the movement that is unapologetically racist, and thrives on cruelty disguised as a rejection of political correctness. 

It will be interesting to watch the future of this movement, where it ultimately goes, what it ultimately becomes, and wahich ideas ultimately define it.
As an interested outsider, McCullough seems thoughtful and fair, even generally sympathetic to, if not totally uncritical of, the aura of the alt-right-osphere. Is he on target? Is he missing anything? Do you care? If you wish to indulge in a bit of navel-gazing (a fun and harmless activity to take part in every once in a while, regardless of the condition of the navel in question), then leave your comment below.

The Nightmare vs. the Dream

via Cambria Will not Yield

Tis still a dream, or else such stuff as madmen
Tongue and brain not; either both or nothing;
Or senseless speaking, or a speaking such
As sense cannot untie. Be what it is,
The action of my life is like it, which
I’ll keep, if but for sympathy.
-
Shakespeare’s Cymbeline

There are some ‘Churchianity’ Christians that are withdrawing from the American vision of Satania, because of the disclosures about the Planned Parenthood employees’ bartering of infants’ body parts and the recent Supreme Court decision which mandates the equality of homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage. What surprises me is that the ‘Churchianity’ Christians have only just realized that Satan rules the European nations. It has been obvious for quite some time to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. And even now, the halfway-housers do not have a clue as to how the march toward Satanism started or how they should fight against satanic liberalism.

The satanic march started with the attack on the white race, and it will only be stopped in its tracks by Europeans committed to defending the white race. Without our racial backbone, we have no spiritual strength. The non-racist Christians who have suddenly discovered that our society is satanic will soon return to Satanism in a different guise, if they don’t stand and fight for their racial hearth fire.

The Christmas carol “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel,” tells of a people languishing in darkness until the Son of God appeared, but that heathen darkness would have remained had not the European people come to believe that their dream of a fairy tale hero was true and their death-in-life existence without faith, hope, and charity, was a nightmare, destined to die, like all nightmares, when the evening shadows gave way to the day. The light died when Europeans began to hate their own people, and death in life darkness returned to Europe. We are no longer the people who have seen a great light, we are the people without light. And we must avoid, as we avoid the plague, intellectual Christians who will not tell us to reclaim our blood faith and cry “death to liberals,” but will instead tell us to go back to pro-abort Aquinas and negro-worshipping Wesley and Wilberforce. It must be our people’s faith that we go to for our strength, a faith that is strong, because it is ‘bred in the bone.’ Our ancient foe loves an intellectual faith, because he can make such a faith serve his purposes. The conservative Christians who feel disenfranchised by the baby-body-parts scandal and the deification of sodomy will ultimately reconcile with the liberals unless they make a complete break with them. And that complete break will necessitate a return to racist Europe. Until they become Goths, loving and hating with all their hearts, they will still belong to the liberals despite their disagreement over abortion and sodomy.

The mystery cults that were thriving in Asia Minor prior to the coming of Christ had different types of devotees. There were followers of Cybele and Mithras who stressed sexual excess and bloody sacrifice, and there were other devotees who stressed abstinence and nonviolence, but they all were followers of their various savior gods who had one thing in common: They were not personal saviors who had entered human history. This is the way it is today. The more conservative element of the New Age Utopian Christians might eschew sexual excess and infant sacrifice, but they will not invoke the historical Jesus, because their Christ is an ahistorical, abstract Christ who can be fashioned to please homosexuals or conservative Christians. Christ has no concrete identity in Church or state in modern Europe, because He has no local habitation in a historical people. You can’t have an incarnate Lord if you deny the people who made Him incarnate in their culture. Pope Francis sees Christ as a Mexican immigrant with Marxist leanings, the Evangelicals see Him as a Jewish nationalist, the church scholars see Him as a syllogism, and the liberals see Him as a lesser god in a pantheon of gods presided over by the ultimate god, the negro. In the absence of the antique Europeans, He is absent. By rejecting them, a flesh and blood people, we rejected Christ, our flesh and blood God who entered human history – our history. The liberals couldn’t care less if a handful of church goers withdraw from Satania. What the liberals fear is angry white people who are willing to fight as a people, while invoking the God of their people. That is a consummation devoutly to be wished for, but I don’t see any signs of that type of awakening in the white Europeans. But then again, there shall be no sign; we must stake everything on that which we cannot see: His grace working within the hearts of Europeans who have kept the faith.

Thomas Nelson Page’s assessment of the two separate nations, the North and the South, within the land mass which we now call the United States, was correct. He stated that the governing class of the Northern states were religious reformers who were dissatisfied with Europe. They came to America with the desire to practice a new and purer Christianity than was practiced in Europe. The South was settled by third and fourth sons, men who had no grudge against the existing European Christianity; they simply lacked the means to live in Europe, so they sought to rebuild Europe in the new land. There were, of course, exceptions to that basic scenario. Jefferson was certainly of the utopian North in spirit. Any man who rewrites the New Testament in order to empty it of its “superfluous” content is not a man of the Old South. But on the whole, Page’s articulation of the two contending ethos of our anti-nation was correct. The North was anti-European and utopian while the South was Christian and European. Our Civil War was a precursor of the wars to come in Europe proper and the other European off-shoot nations, such as South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. The utopians fought under many different guises, but the end result was the liquidation of the spiritual capital of Christian Europe. Now, nothing remains of the civilization that gave us a vision of the living God. In my lifetime, I have watched with horror as the last vestiges of “that charity of honor” disappear from the face of Europe. What has happened in the South, the destruction of every single symbol of the South’s Christian past, is also taking place in the European nations. All symbols of old Europe are either destroyed or turned into symbols of a new religion other than Christianity and a new race other than the white race. Why don’t the flag bashers who profess to be Christian ever ask themselves why the Southern battle flag is the only American flag with a cross on it. And why do Britons, whose flag still does have a cross, permit Moslems to build mosques and spread Islam with fire and sword in what was once Christian Britain? The answer is not blowing in the wind, it is right before our eyes: White men have left their racial hearth fire so they have no spiritual back bone. You can’t fight from the prone position; you must be able to stand upright.

In Dostoyevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov, there is a classic confrontation between Alyosha, the Christian, and Ivan, the atheist. At one point in their spiritual warfare, Ivan asks Alyosha if he would be willing to build a perfect, happy, utopian world on the tears and suffering of one little girl.
“Tell me yourself – I challenge you: let’s assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of human destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let’s say the little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it?”
“No, I would not,” Alyosha said softly.
Therein lies the history of Europe since the French Revolution. The ruling elites of all the European nations have answered yes to Ivan’s question. They were quite willing to build utopia on the torture and murder of white people and on the tortured and mutilated corpses of aborted babies of all colors. The great prophet, Edmund Burke, saw this coming:
Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thorough-bred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the Principle of Evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil. It is no easy operation to eradicate humanity from the human breast. What Shakspeare calls the “compunctious visitings of Nature” will sometimes knock at their hearts, and protest against their murderous speculations. But they have a means of compounding with their nature. Their humanity is not dissolved; they only give it a long prorogation. They are ready to declare that they do not think two thousand years too long a period for the good that they pursue. It is remarkable that they never see any way to their projected good but by the road of some evil. Their imagination is not fatigued with the contemplation of human suffering through the wild waste of centuries added to centuries of misery and desolation. Their humanity is at their horizon,—and, like the horizon, it always flies before them. The geometricians and the chemists bring, the one from the dry bones of their diagrams, and the other from the soot of their furnaces, dispositions that make them worse than indifferent about those feelings and habitudes which are the supports of the moral world. – A Letter to a Noble Lord
The “cold malignity” of the devil is the guiding spirit of Liberaldom. In our churches, our schools, our hospitals, and our civic organizations there is no humanity, there is only the cold, bureaucratic malignity of men and women determined to build utopia by destroying the people who took the incarnate Lord into their hearts and made Him the Lord of their racial hearth fire.

As I grow older I feel less of a distinction between His Europe and His Kingdom come. They are both one in the charity which was at the core of Christian Europe. And I also, as I grow older, feel the more acutely the difference between modern Europe and antique Europe. We are truly living in hell. But when the contrast is so stark, the man with a heart that still lives will turn from this modern hell as he would turn from a reptilian monster intent on devouring him. If there are no men left who will turn from Satan to Him, the end is nigh. Our head tells us one thing and our faith tells us another. We have lived so long in this nightmarish under-world that we no longer believe in that other world of light. The bred-in-the-bone faith of the antique Europeans was first reduced to a fairy tale by the intellectual Christians, and then it became evil and racist to the secularized liberal. It must be all or nothing. Either we go with the European fairy tale, or we stay in Satania. I have no choice; my life is like unto the fairy tale, so I’ll keep it, “if but for sympathy.”

Church Burning and Jewish Settlers in Israel

via Enza Ferreri

Israel’s unfair treatment of Christians continues. At the end of June, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) arrested Greek Orthodox Bishop Atallah Hanna during his peaceful participation in a march protesting the illegal seizure and subsequent sale of Beit al-Baraka hospital, which is part of al-Baraka church, north of Hebron.

A month ago Palestine News Network reported:
A delegation from the Presbyterian church as well as international and Israeli activists participated in the march against the sale of Beit al-Baraka, a hospital which provided medical services to Palestinians as part of al-Baraka church services. The sale is illegal under international and canonical law…

Israeli newspaper Haaretz last month leaked details of the seizure of Beit al-Baraka hospital by a Jewish billionaire, the sale having been allegedly made through a fake Norwegian real estate company. Days after publication of this illegal seizure, the sale process halted, however Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, subsequently decided that there was no legal impediment to the sale of the building.
The previous week saw one of the most serious episodes of violence in recent memory against Christians in Israel.

Five teams of firefighters were necessary to put out the flames which at dawn woke up Tabgha, the area on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, in northern Israel, where Jesus fed the 5,000 with the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (Mark 6:30-46) and where Jesus appeared for the fourth time after his resurrection following his Crucifixion (John 21:1-24).

A fire broke out at the Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fish, built on the site of the miracle, in the middle of the night, “causing extensive damage to the inside and outside of the building, said Israel police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld.” A monk and a church volunteer were hospitalised from smoke inhalation.

A spokesman for the fire brigade said that the blaze broke out in several places inside the limestone church, evidence that it was started deliberately.

Hebrew graffiti had been spray-painted in red on a wall outside the church, reading "False gods will be destroyed”, a passage from the Aleinu Leshabeach, a prayer recited by practising Jews at the end of each of the three daily services, suggesting that Jewish zealots were responsible.

So much for the much-vaunted "Judaeo-Christian tradition". These Israeli Jews didn't get the memo.

Police briefly detained 16 young Jewish settlers, all religious Jewish seminary students visiting the Sea of Galilee area from settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. They were freed within hours. Police spokeswoman Luba Samri said that 10 of those detained were from Yitzhar, which is known as a bastion of extremists and where some residents have been involved in previous hate crimes.

The Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fish is one of the Holy Land’s most famous Catholic churches and one of the places most visited by pilgrims to the Holy Land, with more than 5,000 people visiting it daily. The church had to be closed for a few days due to the fire damage.

Nahum Weisfish, a Jerusalem rabbi, said the site might have been targeted because it housed a synagogue some 2,000 years ago.

The site is owned by the German Roman Catholic Church, and Berlin's envoy to Israel Andreas Michaelis said he was "shocked" by the incident, adding: "Religious institutions must be as well protected in Israel as they are in Germany and Europe."

That’s exactly the point. If Israel wants to be considered as a Western democracy, it’s no good to argue that Christians in the Jewish state are not butchered and tortured with the degree of barbarity we find in Muslim countries and Muslim-controlled areas. The difference pointed out between Israel and other Middle Eastern nations is true, but the right object of comparison for a country which claims to be part of the West should be Western democracies.

Zionists have to stress how concerned they are about the fate of Christians in the Middle East at the hands of murderous Muslims to keep the Evangelicals supporting their cause. That doesn't stop Israel from secretly helping the worst murderers of Christians: ISIS.

Tabgha had been subjected to a previous attack in April 2014. Father Matthias Karl, a German monk at the church, explained that a group of religious Jewish teenagers had pelted worshippers with stones, destroyed a cross and threw benches into the lake.

In April, vandals smashed gravestones at a Maronite Christian cemetery near Israel's northern border with Lebanon.

In recent years, many mosques and churches have been vandalised in both Israel and the West Bank.

The attacks are often attributed to extremist Jews, particularly from West Bank settlements, but, despite condemnations and promises of crackdown on religiously-inspired hate crime by Israeli politicians, few have been convicted.

The Rabbis for Human Rights group says there have been 43 hate crime attacks on churches, mosques and monasteries in Israel and the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since 2009.

Many of these are so-called "price-tag" attacks, carried out against Israeli security forces as well as Palestinian property, both Muslim and Christian, in reprisal for Israeli government’s action against the Jewish illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. The name indicates that these attacks are the price to pay for anti-settlement activity.

The US State Department's 2013 Country Reports on Terrorism included price-tag attacks for the first time. It says: “In August, the Beit Jamal Monastery near Jerusalem was firebombed and spray-painted with the words “death to the Gentiles” and other slogans.”

It quotes UN figures of “399 attacks by extremist Israeli settlers that resulted in Palestinian injuries or property damage.” It adds that such attacks were “largely unprosecuted according to UN and NGO sources.”

Whenever there is mention of the UN, Zionists reject wholesale every one of its pronouncements or reports because it is "pro-Palestinian". The implication is that it is biased. They often argue that all Muslim countries, through the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), vote as a bloc in the UN, thus skewing the vote results in favour of the Palestinians and against Israel. OIC is a 57-member state organisation representing 1.5 billion Muslims around the world. As the largest Islamic organization in the world, it is quite powerful and the largest voting bloc in the UN.

Could it be that the UN is "pro-Palestinian" because of the right of return that Israel denies that people or the 3/4 of a million illegal settlers in Israel’s occupied territories?

Israel’s Joint Arab List party alliance, in the wake of the latest attack, that against the Church of the Multiplication, called for the immediate dismissal of Israel's police chief, Yohanan Danino, and for Right-wing extremist groups to be declared terrorist organisations. It also accused the government of doing nothing to control extremist Right-wing organisations:
"Netanyahu stands at the head of the incitement system against the Arab public in Israel, and he is guilty of the revenge attacks we witness in the morning news," the party stated. "A so-called price-tag attack is not an act by deviants, but rather an act by calculated, thinking people that are indicative of the existence and repercussions of institutionalized racism and oppression."
Prime Minister Netanyahu has used strong words against the recent unknown vandals, but it’s impossible not to notice that the perpetrators of this kind of crime have almost never been identified, captured and put on trial. Isn’t it a bit strange, in a country which has an impressive and efficient security and police apparatus?

In 2014, just before Pope Francis’ visit to Israel, in Jerusalem both the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Notre Dame Center, the large Christian complex just outside the Old City, were covered with offensive graffiti. Before that, the Franciscan Church near the Last Supper Room, the Dormition Abbey and a nearby Christian cemetery were attacked. In 2012, using methods similar to those employed in Tabghah, the Latrun Trappist Monastery had been attacked. People tried and sentenced? Nil.

With all the best will in the world, it’s a bit hard to see Netanyahu as someone who doggedly pursues Jewish vandals coming from the settlements. That’s because Netanyahu is and has always been the settlements’ number one supporter. When Ariel Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza in 2004, Netanyahu left his government in protest. In the last twenty years the surface occupied by Israeli settlements in the occupied territories has grown by over 180%, and for at least half of this time Netanyahu has been Prime Minister.

The last act of the previous Netanyahu government, the one that led to the disintegration of the government and early elections, was its approval of the law that defines Israel as the "state of the Jewish nation", potentially discriminating against ethnic and religious minorities.

In short, all of Netanyahu’s political action has been in favour of the settlements policy. He has drawn a growing political support from it. The reality is that today the settlers are those who dictate the political trend in Israel. Their interests influence the agenda of governments. The intransigence of those who hold the front line, even risking their lives, is to be respected. The rest, including arsons, is just a consequence.

Israeli Settler Leader Calls for Burning Down Churches

via DavidDuke.com

Jewish Extremist Benzi Gopstein (right)
The irony of course is that American evangelical Christians have been big time supporters of the settler movement through organizations like Christians United For Israel (which actually has Jewish executive director). Likewise, Israel is the great ally that the supposed Christian Republican presidential candidates are declaring their undying loyalty to, and the settlements are a top priority government-sponsored movement.

From PressTV:
An Israeli settler leader has called for arson attacks to be carried out against churches, media reports say.

Benzi Gopstein, the head of the extremist Lehava organization, made the remarks Thursday during a panel discussion, addressing students studying traditional religion.
When asked if he thought churches should be set ablaze, he replied by saying “of course.”

He said that churches should be set on fire in order to condemn what he called Christian “idol worship.”

Also, when journalists present at the discussion warned Gopstein that his statements were being recorded and he could face consequences, the Israeli said he was willing to spend 50 years in prison for his remarks.

In June, Israeli settlers torched the Church of the Multiplication, located on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee. They also left behind Hebrew graffiti on the walls, including “the worship of idols.”

The Israelis also set on fire a church building belonging to the Greek Orthodox Church in East al-Quds (Jerusalem) in February.

This comes days after an arson attack by Israeli settlers on Palestinian home in the occupied West Bank. An 18-month-old child was burnt to death and his family seriously injured as a result of the attack, drawing widespread international condemnation.

Israeli settlers have increased their attacks and hate crimes against Christians and Muslims, as well as their holy sites.  They are rarely prosecuted.

Trump, Paul, and the Cucks

via Radix

Though I’ve been on vacation, I was able to catch the first Republican Presidential debate online, as well as a ridiculous live focus group, led by a man whom the gods hated so much that they cursed him, not only with ugliness, but with eternally ill-fitting menswear.

I don’t think I watched a single Republican debate debate in 2011-12; I watched this one simply for Trump. Sadly, the rules dictated that other candidates had to speak, too, and I was reminded why I can’t stand these things.

It’s expected that people like me are exhausted, to the point of nausea, with the endless repetitions of GOP idealism: The American Dream . . . uniting, not dividing this country . . . bashing “Washington insiders” (who aren’t them) . . . and the bullshit badassery of Republicans confronting “radical Islam.” The latter was particularly titillating to the crowd, as it allowed them to indulge in a government-sanctioned racism, which lies just on the edge of the forbidden. Some might think that such talk leads, eventually, to a deeper understanding of identity; for the past 15 years, it has led solely to pointless wars (pointless for us, at least).

Anyway, shouldn’t all of this not just annoy me but annoy the middle-of-the-road Republican voters as well? Apparently not. Apparently, we’ll have to wait another 20 years, when Baby Boomers have left the scene, to experience some kind of rhetorical change on the American Right. Or perhaps it will never change. Perhaps long into America’s transition into a country of mass slums, abandoned strip malls, and walled luxury communities, some new scion of Prescott Bush will talk about his 4-percent GDP-growth projections and eagerness to attract all Americans through the power of conservative values.

Trump parroted some of this meaningless claptrap, of course, but he generally answered questions with honesty, such as in his legendary “Rosie O’Donnell” exchange.



As Jack Donovan pointed out on one of our last podcasts, we misunderstand human nature—or female nature, rather—when we imagine that most women will be attracted to the violent fantasies of lesbian extremists or the silliness of Pussy Riot, FEMEN, and SJWs. In the end, women don’t like danger, and women want to look pretty. The feminism that has triumphed is that which is compatible with both female nature and postmodern capitalism. “Feminists” like Megyn Kelly will adhere to their traditional motherly and nanny roles of policing language and manners in order to ensure “fairness,” which includes treating all women as precious and special creatures, who should never suffer insults. They thus, ironically, reintroduce traditional gender norms into the post-patriarchal workplace. 

And one last note on the debate. Rand Paul effectively disappeared on stage, with the exception of his exchange with Chris Christie over data collection and surveillance, in which he seemed like an impassioned, if off-the-shelf, libertarian-conservative. Paul’s attacks on Trump were incoherent and off-target. Worse, he just seemed like an average conservative doofus. All Republicans like to talk about their love of capitalism and individual rights during the primaries, so Paul’s candidacy keeps raising a question—What’s the point? Contrast this with Ron Paul’s 2008 performances. Whatever you might think of him and libertarianism, Paul differentiated himself from the rest of the field, which was then still caught up in Bush-era neoconservatism.

Now it is Trump who is the different one. He was the most “antiwar” Republican candidate, and the only person who seems to viscerally (if not quite intellectually) grasp the reality of European-American displacement.

Is this the end of the Ron Paul movement, which began in 2007 as a heady, though quite genuine, antiwar alternative to the staus quo? Could we have seen this coming? Let’s put aside the “playing the game” critique, which so many have leveled against Rand Paul and his followers, who made their peace with the Republican establishment and conservative movement. Could we have seen this coming in the shear number of sub-mediocrities who were promoted by the “liberty movement” (some of whom were recently indicted for alleged campaign malfeasance)? Could we have seen this coming due to the nature of libertarianism itself? Libertarianism is, after all, a form of liberalism, in other words, a purified version of the system’s own ideology.

In the end, millions of dollars were raised on behalf of the Paul family, and millions of man-hours invested in a movement that has become barely distinguishable from standard Republicanism. So again—what was the point?

Lawfare in the Age of 'White Terror': A Missed Opportunity for White Nationalists?

via Counter-Currents

Beatriz Aguilera; Militant Peronist who
fought for “Socialism, Nationalism, and
Catholicism” disappeared by her
Government
Lawfare is the process by which those seeking political change, along the entire spectrum of political actors, from activists to insurgent, use recourse to the courts. This obviously includes cases which have a reasonable hope of victory where legislative and electoral success is impossible. It also includes hopeless cases. Court cases can be put to propaganda purposes, whether to diffuse revolutionary ideas or to delegitimize a regime. The examples of these types are practically endless. Perhaps the most concrete Objective set by Lawfare practitioners is the redefining of a conflict between a state and internal dissenters, primarily distinguishing political violence from criminal activity and likewise distinguishing PoWs from common criminals. Lawfare practitioners may prevent states from choosing when it is convenient for them to live up to their commitments to human rights and international law, by bringing cases regarding boycotts or the arrest of foreign political leaders responsible for mass murder or prosecuting wars of aggression. In its more sophisticated forms it makes use of the concept of Universal Jurisdiction. This is used to force the opposition to divert funds and distract its leadership. For example, a military or government official who must prepare and deliver testimony related to past actions before a tribunal has less time to prosecute the war underway.

The first part of this article will explain the concept of Lawfare and how it fits in with other methods used by movements seeking radical change. It will also give some examples of its more simple uses for propaganda purposes. Future installments will delve into Universal Jurisdiction, the idea that serious Human Rights cases are of global concern rather than “local concern,” therefore alleged violators may be indicted by judges in countries totally unrelated to the victim, the accused, or the location of the alleged crime. Universal Jurisdiction is perhaps the most powerful tool in the arsenal of the Lawfare practitioner. Finally, after considering examples of Lawfare’s successful use, the question will be explored of what White Nationalist judges and lawyers might do to appropriate these tools to pursue our own goals.

The only famous American, that I am aware of who, came close to practicing lawfare was William Kunstler. However, his approach could be summed up as pretending the guilty did not commit their crime and grandstand during the trial regarding the “white supremacist power structure.” However, his actions apparently lacked the strategic depth of the examples given below.

Lawfare is still a very new area and good information on the subject is hard to come by. In the English language, it is dominated by Zionist Jews who create associations (i.e. The Lawfare Project or NGO Monitor) and mount conferences to decry how unfairly they are being treated by governments seeking to treat their war criminals like those of any other pariah state. There is also the rather disappointing LawfareBlog run by the Brookings Institution, which covers international law as it relates to the foreign policy of the Empire, but offers very little concrete study. Legal scholar Jeremy Waldron, though not a radical, has referred to this kind of scholarship as “petulant” (without naming the Zionists) and characterizes their position as “how dare the weaker party use the weapons of the weak.”

One of the reasons for a shortage of quality public information is that those who are allegedly practicing Lawfare with success and vigor are not announcing this to the world because of the negative connotation of the word. Using the word would imply a cynicism with regards to the principles of law under consideration in each particular case. Therefore, each individual case would appear weaker if it exists as one part in the sum of cases seeking a political outcome unrelated to the legal principles in the case in question.

A Legal Scholar’s View of Lawfare in the Context of Asymmetrical Warfare

Jeremy Waldron, Professor of Law and Philosophy at NYU
Jeremy Waldron, Professor of Law
and Philosophy at NYU
Returning to Jeremy Waldron’s commentary, given during his keynote speech to Harvard’s Asymmetric Warfare Symposium:
In a situation of asymmetric expectations perhaps detainees have to be permitted to play both sides of the game, as they judge convenient. They may choose to boycott the courts as Mahatma Gandhi urged his followers to do in India. But this is a matter of strategy rather than of principle . . . so far I have presented the insurgents recourse to law as a tactical matter for them, but it may not be purely tactical, it may be a principled part of what they are doing. Or in the early stages of an insurrection it may be mixed in with everything else they are doing and trying as they seek to advance their cause every which way against the regime they are trying to undermine. One week they may be ambushing a police station. The next week they may be petitioning a constitutional court. Some of them may be bringing actions of law at the same time that others are shooting government soldiers or blowing them up. You may think of this as wrong and inconsistent, if you are using both these sorts of strategies. But I want to caution against an oversimplified model of armed insurgency on the one hand and the use of nonviolent strategies on the other. When you do political philosophy . . . sometimes we imagine a tidy sequence of forms of dissidence . . .

1) political opposition [standing for elections]
2) redress of abuses to the courts and maybe international institutions
3) public/disruptive protest and civil disobedience
4) passive/nonviolent resistance
5) forceful individual resistance
6) low grade armed or more-or-less unarmed insurrection (like the First Intifada)
7) full scale well-organized armed insurgency

. . . The fact is that progress from one stage to another is rarely orderly. Especially in insurrection, tactics are likely to be mixed up. Even in ordinary politics, we mix our strategies for political action in legislatures and lawsuit action in the courts. Think about the campaign for same-sex marriage throughout the country. People are working both strategies simultaneously. They don’t just have recourse to the legal strategy when the legislative strategy fails. Or think about Civil Disobedience, we often engage in Civil Disobedience as a way of initiating a lawsuit, and it does not presuppose that legal remedies have been exhausted.”

Waldron also points out that the claim by critics that these seven steps must be followed in succession is further complicated by the fact that courts may be presenting a false hope for honest recourse. He points out that even John Locke was aware of this problem.

. . . where an appeal to the law and constituted judges lies open, but the remedy is denied by a manifest perverting of justice and a bare-faced wrestling of the laws to protect or indemnify the violence or injuries of some men, or party of men, there it is hard to imagine anything but a state of war. For wherever violence is used and injury done, though by hands appointed to administer justice, it is still violence and injury, however coloured with the name, pretences, or forms of law, the end whereof being to protect and redress the innocent, by an unbiased application of it, to all who are under it; wherever that is not bona fide done, war is made upon the sufferers, who having no appeal on earth to right them, they are left to the only remedy in such cases. (John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ch. 3)

From Jeremy Waldron’s perspective, he is discussing an “is” rather than an “ought.” Since we are not simply observing this process and attempting to be objective, we should look at this nonlinear understanding of political struggle as an “ought.” National Liberation struggles provide the best example of how these different approaches get mixed together, sometimes with a single revolutionary committee behind the curtain and sometimes totally separate but for their common vision.

A Case Study in the Nonsequential Use Lawfare Among Waldron’s 7 Methods for Political Change

Poster produced by the Support Republican Prisoners Campaign, another Sinn Fein/IRA front group
Poster produced by the Support
Republican Prisoners Campaign,
another Sinn Fein/IRA front group

In Northern Ireland, the Armed Struggle and Legal battles over Human Rights were two fronts being simultaneously pursued by Irish Nationalists. Of course any organizational link between these two fronts in the struggle had to be nonexistent or hidden and informal. This brief overview will not do justice to the nuances of this confrontation but should illustrate how Movements, loosely defined, will move freely between and combine Jeremy Waldron’s 7 methods, listed above.

At the end of 1969 a schism in the IRA which was previously dedicated to a quixotic conventional military approach [Method 7], produced the Provisional IRA which preferred a Guerilla approach [Method 6]. In response, the UK government began using internment without charge coupled with the “Five Techniques” for interrogations of detainees suspected of involvement in or sympathy for the “Provos.”

Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, then founded the Northern Resistance Movement which organized peaceful protests [Method 3] against internment without charge. The radicals of Northern Resistance Movement teamed up with the MLK-inspired Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. Their marches came to a dramatic climax on Bloody Sunday in 1972, when the British soldiers on the scene lost their composure and opened fire on the protesters.

Soon afterwards the IRA prisoners were granted “Special Category Status” which was similar to treatment of Prisoners of War, thanks to the recommendations of the Parker Commission and, as has been recently disclosed, due to direct IRA-UK negotiations. Irish Republican and Loyalist prisoners were exempt from wearing prison uniforms, doing prison labor, would be housed with other members of their paramilitary organization, and from limitations on common criminals from which PoWs are typically exempt.

Within a month of this concession, the IRA unleashed Bloody Friday [Method 6]. Simultaneously, the UK government was challenged for its policy of using the Five Techniques for interrogations as well as the excesses of interrogators which did not fall within the Five Techniques. The UK was challenged before the European Commission on Human Rights [Method 2] which found that the UK was guilty of torture and violation of the Human Rights of internees. An appeal was made to the European Court of Human Rights which partially overturned the Commission’s findings in 1978, but the damage to the reputation of the UK had been done. The Legitimacy of the IRA, in the eyes of their constituents at home and supporters abroad, and of their militants’ Right to be considered Prisoners of War had been established in the minds of many. These findings had no teeth in both cases, but once paired with a strong PR campaign, did far more damage in the struggle for hearts and minds than any punishment the judges of Strasbourg could have meted out.

Recent photo of a mural in Northern Ireland celebrating Pat Finucane, a human rights and terrorism defense lawyer with several immediate family members in the IRA who was probably assassinated in an operation which was organized by the UK government. His home was invaded on a Sunday morning. After he was killed, he was shot repeatedly in the face lying on the floor next to his breakfast table while his small children hid under the same table from the gunmen. The case is ongoing.
Recent photo of a mural in Northern Ireland
celebrating Pat Finucane, a human rights
and terrorism defense lawyer
“Special Category Status” was revoked in 1976, while the UK was awaiting the results of their appeal and the IRA and Loyalists continued their violent struggle. The prisoners then began their Passive Resistance [Method 4] which starting with the Blanket Protest (they refused to wear prison clothes so they wore their blankets), progressing to the Dirty Protest (they prisoners refused to go to the washroom/toilets because of organized harassment, so they never left their cells and smudged their feces on the wall), and then it culminated in the Hunger Strike in which 10 Irish Republican prisoners fasted until death. Just before the first hunger striker, Bobby Sands, had died he was elected to the UK Parliament [Method 1].
Simultaneously, as Britain was waiting for that appeal, they were actively infiltrating militant Nationalist cells. Three notorious cases, the most famous being the Birmingham 6, had their beginning in this period. In order to protect the position and freedom of the informers working for MI5 who massacred British civilians, the British Deep State saw to it that innocent men were framed for these crimes. In the short term, it kept their flow of information from those who laid these bombs, but in the long term it undermined the moral high ground that the UK government had even in minds of the British Left.

The British Right was also losing faith in their government’s approach. To paraphrase the criticism of Oliver O’Donovan, a conservative Anglican clergyman in Northern Ireland (from Waldron’s speech): Standards of proof for criminal prosecution were too high, prosecutions took too long, and the need to prosecute on an incident by incident basis required the British to delve too deeply into detail rather than deal with the opposing force as a collective; as the criminal system made adjustments to deal with that which it was not designed for, jury trials were suppressed in favor of a new system in which the judge would fulfill his role as well as that of jury. So the UK’s legal approach was also failing the Conservatives of Britain who sought order, efficiency, and security.

Considering that Northern Ireland had British Troops on the ground conducting investigations and arrests without presence of civilian police forces, one would reasonably assume that those arrested would be treated as Prisoners of War and tried by military tribunals rather than criminal courts . . . especially if treating these militants as such would have made the job of counterinsurgency troops easier. On the other hand, why would IRA prisoners fight for a regime which would see more of them locked up? The logic of their decisions brings up back to a key concept explored in “Analyzing the Effectiveness of Politically Motivated Mass Murder in the US,” that is the prime importance of Legitimacy.

As Kevin MacDonald would point out, keeping the moral high ground is a necessity for our race to keep fighting. The UK Government failed to do that. Illegitimate brute force can win the day, but while the IRA could never win independence for their province, the British generals reported that they could not snuff out the IRA. It was only a matter of time until a new Prime Minister with ambitious domestic and constitutional goals would see that this struggle was, as the Unionists civilians of Northern Ireland had always feared, not worth the time and political capital.

As a result of the Good Friday accords, the IRA disarmed and suspended the armed struggle. Few outside observers know that the “democratic” system put in place was one which guaranteed Irish Nationalists/Republicans would always be at the center of political power regardless of the majority will. This province keeps the peace by using the rather byzantine D’Hondt Method instead of the First Past the Post Method, which would leave the minority Nationalist/Republicans as alienated from power as they had been when the Armed Struggle began. It was worth it to the Westminster Government to cede this power in a peripheral province in order to limit the Irish Nationalists to nonviolent methods [Methods 1-4].[1] In the post-Good Friday Agreement situation the use of Lawfare by Nationalists coupled with Propaganda continues. The case of the Pat Finucane assassination, pictured above, is one of the most important ongoing battles on this front.

Jacques Vergès – “Terror’s Advocate”

Jacques Vergès Defending Klaus Barbie
Jacques Vergès Defending
Klaus Barbie

Jacques Vergès was a giant of the use of Lawfare. He was born and raised by his French Communist father and Vietnamese mother in La Reunion, a French Overseas Territory near Madagascar. He attended law school in Paris where he became enmeshed in the political scene of young anti-colonialists. He even started a lifelong friendship with Pol Pot at his university.
When the FLN began its campaign of terror against White civilians in Algeria, Djamila Bouhired bombed a café killing 11 civilians. Her supporters hired Jacques Verges to defend her. While other communist lawyers from Paris had encouraged him to ask for mercy from the court while minimizing Djamila’s agency in deciding to participate in the attack, Vergès instead used the case as an opportunity to grandstand against the colonial presence of France in Algeria and attack the court for supposed hypocrisy. He later admitted that his primary goal was to incite more violence.

The crowd of Europeans who gathered daily inside the court and overflowed into the streets were insulted by him. He used stories of torture during interrogation, like the rest of the FLN, to push the young Arabs to act. He hoped to raise the level of anger and polarization in both communities to the point that the violence would be noticed by the international press and so the conflict would pass from Terrorism to Insurgency. Djamila was convicted to death by guillotine; however, she was later released in a prisoner exchange.

Jacques Vergès led a fascinating life which is explored in the films l’Avocat de la Terreur (the version linked here does not have subtitles, but such a version should exist), and in the film Hotel Terminus focused on the Klaus Barbie case. The Swiss financier François Genoud, who was an ardent National Socialist and well connected in the Arab World, hired Vergès to defend Klaus Barbie.

It is the view of this author that Klaus Barbie’s counterinsurgency tactics did include war crimes, in particular extrajudicial execution and exemplary execution when suspected Resistance remained at large. However, the prosecution narrowly formulated the case to only include the charge of Crimes Against Humanity and only in regard to the deportation of the Children of Izieu, and alleged foreknowledge that these Jewish children would inevitably be gassed. While highly fraught with emotion, the connection between Barbie and this crime was weaker than most others which occurred near Lyon during his command there.

In short, this began as a Jewish Lawfare attack with several objectives:
  • Redefine “crimes against Jews” as “Crimes Against Humanity”
  • Establish the Holocaust Catechism in France
    1. Jews have suffered uniquely
    2. The rest of the world is to blame
    3. Their victimization is totally irrational
  • Diffuse the “Black Legends” of the SS (i.e. dogs trained to rape) into the minds of the masses with authority figures in black robes confirming “official” accounts of this savagery
Jacques Vergès responded to their Lawfare Attack with a Counter Attack that shook them to their core. The courtroom was full of Chosen Ones literally in tears as a result of his address as they awaited their inevitable victory. He focused his defense around the banality of the charges against Barbie, as well as tell a number of uncomfortable truths that accompany any war that is not taking place on the silver screen. There was nothing that Barbie did as head of the Gestapo in Lyon that the French government and its allies were not also guilty of in the colonies in the years following WWII and the Nuremberg Trials.

He used this tribune to recount the numerous tales of Jewish collaborators who, in the early days of Occupation, collaborated in the discovery of recently arrived Jewish refugees to be deported. This was particularly upsetting to the prosecution which was almost entirely Jewish. This was done in response to the submissions by the prosecution of richly emotional accounts of mass arrests compiled by Serge Klarsfeld, France’s Nazi Hunter.

Jacques Vergès also did his part for revisionism by presenting documentary evidence that some of Serge Klarsfeld’s documents submitted by the Prosecution had been falsified when compared to originals. He created unrest in the audience in the large sweltering courtroom by pointing out the impossibility of some of the witness testimony, in particular regarding German Shepherds trained to rape women. You may imagine that making such a statement should take about 15 seconds, but Vergès, the showman, stretched this out for three minutes to intentionally make any listener, even a nonbeliever, cringe. Ultimately, he called into question the concept of Crimes Against Humanity and whether it could be applied to this case.

Vergès’ closing argument was without a doubt a masterful performance. Klaus Barbie was found guilty and lived out the remaining four years of his life in prison. However, an unnamed American journalist recently researching the case pointed out that whenever she interviewed the attorney’s of the winning side they were angry and those of the losing side were very pleased. In the eye’s of anyone paying attention and who understands the law, Vergès unveiled that this was not a typical case but a legal lynching brought on by communitarian influences behind the scenes. This is the irony of Lawfare and Propaganda. Victory in the court room is unrelated to victory in the big picture of a political struggle.

Universal Jurisdiction, Part 2

One of the greatest weapons in the Lawfare practitioner’s arsenal is Universal Jurisdiction. This will be explored in Part 2 of this essay. Lawfare, in its higher forms, requires creativity to be used effectively. Part 3 will focus on opportunities for White Nationalist Lawfare and will hopefully include the contributions commenters brainstorming on this site will make.

Note:

1. There is a rumor that after the Canary Wharf bombing there was a very brief meeting between Tony Blair and the Lord Mayor of London. In this meeting Blair was presented with a graph of the GDP of London’s financial industry vs. the GDP of Northern Ireland and was informed to “get his priorities straight.”

Invasion!

via Western Spring

In the news today is the story that a forty-year old Sudanese illegal immigrant, named Abdul Rahman Haroun, managed to evade all of the security precautions on the French side of the Channel Tunnel and walk the thirty-one miles from Calais to Folkestone before being picked up by British police.

According to the Daily Mail’s editorial, this development highlights a greater danger than many of us might have hitherto realised: “… what if he had been a terrorist? If a migrant can evade the security around the tunnel, why not a fanatic with a bomb – which could kill thousands and paralyse one of Britain’s most important transport links for months, if not years?” the Daily Mail asks.

“This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Ministers can no longer come up with ineffectual measures to what is both a migrant crisis and a major threat to Britain’s security. They must tackle the situation with urgency and vigour – with the help of the Army if necessary.

“Three days ago Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond declared that the Government ‘has a grip’ on the crisis. If he genuinely believes that, he’s deluding himself.”
In another article, the Daily Mail reports that in response to this recent incident “Ministers are to consider the ‘nuclear option’ of closing the Channel Tunnel at night if the Calais migrant crisis deepens …”

invasion 3It obviously did not occur to the Daily Mail that any of the 1,500 or so invaders who successfully make the Channel crossing each month hiding in the backs of lorries, could be carrying an explosive device and that the risk of a bombing incident in the Channel Tunnel has existed for several years now.

What also seems to have escaped the Daily Mail is that the absence of any such attacks so far upon the tunnel, indicates clearly that Jihadi groups regard it as important to their eventual success that the Channel Tunnel and all other transport routes into the UK remain open. Clearly, the freer movement is between Britain and the mainland, the more Muslims that get into Britain, the greater are the prospects of a successful future Jihad and the prospects of establishing an Islamic state in this country.

Following Abdul Rahman Haroun’s interception by British police in Kent, after his long walk along the tunnel, we can be sure that he was not prosecuted for attempting to illegally enter this country, we can be sure that he has not been taken to prison and we can be sure that he has not been sent back to Calais. No, he will have been fed and accommodated and provided with legal aid with which to campaign for the right to remain in this country, all at British taxpayers’ expense.

invasion 1The truth is that neither the Islamic Jihadis, nor the British or French governments, nor the European Union want to stop the invasion of Britain and Europe by non-Whites from the Third World. In fact they want to facilitate it and the only thing stopping them from completely ‘rolling out the Red Carpet’ to welcome the invaders, is the fear of a public backlash from the indigenous British and indigenous Europeans.

It is time we British ceased waiting and hoping for our government to do anything effective to stop the invasion of Britain and set about effecting measures that do not rely upon governmental intervention on our behalf. We need to create White enclaves and begin the task of carving out an all-White homeland on these islands where we can live free from invasion and protected from the multi-racial, multicultural nightmare that is spreading across our land.

NB: I have used the terms ‘invader’ and ‘invasion’ in this article deliberately, as they accurately describes what is taking place. When individuals seek to enter our country legally, they are ‘immigrants’; when they seek to enter our country illegally, they are ‘illegal immigrants’; but when they attempt to storm and overwhelm our nations defences as an organised mob, in their hundreds and thousands, there is no other word for it, they are ‘invaders’ carrying out an ‘invasion’, and they should be described as such.