The End Times of Albion: Timeline — First Period, 1945-1983

The essay below by Seneca III is the latest in the “End Times of Albion” series.
Previously: Part 1, Part 2.

Timeline — First Period, 1945-1983

The End Times of Albion, Part 3

by Seneca III

This analysis began two months ago when the Telford story broke overnight on 10th/11th March. The original intention was to dig deep into the underbelly of that forty-year atrocity and extract from the quagmire of reportage and the local historical record some idea as to how the mass rape, sexual trafficking, torture and brutal abuse of hundreds, possibly thousands, of white girl children there could come about and be ignored or brushed under the political carpet by so many for so long.

What it has uncovered is a nationwide, indeed Europe-wide, state of affairs that is a complex, mind-numbing web of subtle treachery and political ambition dating back to the 1920’s. This web grew slowly in the shadows during the long period of its gestation and has evolved into a tapestry of confusion, collusion, concealment, obfuscation and Marxist-Socialist indoctrination from which mendacious Western establishments created the warp and weft of the Grand Conspiracy that has brought us to this defining place and time.

In conclusion, Telford was neither a singularity, an accident nor an aberration; it is the end result of a multinational, century-long operation formulated with the objective of changing the course of Anglo-European and global history, and which is now rapidly approaching its apogee.

Thus, the emergence into full public view of the Telford abomination should come as no surprise to an informed though now cowed and multiculturally brainwashed indigenous population at large. It is but another demonstration of our journey down the road to perdition exemplified by the application of well-oiled group-think indoctrination through the enforced silence of the native victim groups and their communities via draconian hate crime laws ordained at the highest levels of government.

It is axiomatic that few history-changing events ever happen in temporal isolation, nor rarely in a single geographic location; there is always a chain of subtle, interconnected and barely noticeable precursors, the first faint ripples in the fabric of the structural ethos of a race, culture, nation, tribe or alliance which tend to disappear below the perceptual horizon of the body politic as a whole as it goes about its busy existence. Then, slowly, these ripples become deep rents and increase in frequency and severity until they reach a point where even the most inattentive eye can see that they portend a collapse from within and/or destruction from without.

Such a time is now upon us, and events in the timeline below and those to follow illustrate the connections between consecutive and parallel stages of the process. The ‘Grand Scheme of Things’ is being implemented through the mass importation of violent third-world, low IQ, feral predators with the intention of hastening the end of Western intellectual, moral and cultural strengths through the internal repression of long-heritage citizens and their consequent regressive mongrelisation. The ultimate objective is the elimination of the Caucasian blood line.

On the 18th of April the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims launched their “appeal for evidence” Monday, describing “Islamophobia” as a form of “group based hatred or hostility” comparable to racism.

Their letter does not acknowledge there might be rational reasons to have reservations about rising levels of radical Islam and the growing influence of Islam in the West generally.

The call for submissions also only mentions free speech concerns at the end, in passing, describing them as “questions possibly outside the scope of this report”.

They aim to develop a definition of Islamophobia that can be “widely accepted by Muslim communities, political parties, and the Government”, the document adds.

Baroness Warsi, the parliamentary group’s treasurer and one of its four elected officers, tweeted: “To effectively challenge #Islamophobia we must comprehensively define it.”

(Breitbart London, 24th April)

If you don’t live on this benighted Island, then try to understand this — wherever you are, you are next if you are not already enriched, for here over a million girl children have been drugged, raped, tortured and impregnated and still more are in the process (The Halifax sequel will break soon unless our beloved establishment, as is their wont, manage to bury it).

Caveats: Links, quotations and citations are kept to an absolute minimum for reasons of space and simplification of comprehension, but interested readers are encouraged to undertake their own, deeper research using dated elements in the timeline as a starting point. Apart from needing to keep this analysis as short as possible and within the scope of a blog, I have not included mention of two World Wars and most of the semi-major and minor conflicts that have taken place within the timeline. I have done this on the assumption that the majority not mentioned categorise either as direct consequences of the Globalisation Project rather than as
initiators, are either unconnected or of relatively minor importance.

The same thinking particularly applies to WW II and the period that saw the end of European and East Asian Colonial Empires and the rise of new ones. Both trends, especially the Partition of India in 1949, can be traced back with various degrees of certitude to WW II and the Cold War which followed and are deserving of a case study of their own for which I do not have the space or time here.

General Timeline of Deconstruction

1920’s to the present — The birth and evolution of the ‘Racism’, (embryonic) ‘Political Correctness’, ‘Diversity’, ‘Multiculturalism’ and ‘Affirmative Action’ behavioral imperatives and the first implementations of a strategy to infiltrate and suborn Western educational establishments — in essence, the battle for our minds and those of our children.

Also, contributions from the ‘Frankfurt School’, the ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ (1966), the ‘Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan’ (C-K was the author or the subject of 37 major publications spread over the period 1922-1972), Saul D. Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ (1971) and Common Purpose (1989).

Collectively the clever manipulation of the ‘Mea Culpa!’ Syndrome utilised as a Marxist-Socialist revolutionary tool.

First Critical Period — De-colonisation and the rise of globalism

1945 to 1947 — Post-War reorganization across Europe. Immigration to the UK from the nascent Commonwealth begins in earnest.

1947 — The Partition of India, which resulted in the creation of two independent dominions, India and Pakistan, and the subsequent emergence of modern Bangladesh as an independent nation in 1971 after breaking away and achieving independence from Pakistan in the Bangladesh Liberation War.

1947 — The All-Party Group for World Governance, previously the All-Party Group for World Government, was founded by a British Labour Party politician, Henry Charles Usborne (16 January 1909 — 16 March 1996). At its peak, it had over 200 members from the House of Commons and the House of Lords.


Henry Charles Usborne, Clement Edward Davies, Gilbert McAllister, Mary Tibaldi Chiesa

1947 onwards — The rate of ‘Commonwealth’ occupation of the UK from backward areas of Bangladesh and Pakistan such as Azad, Kashmir and Punjab increases. Today those areas are rich in new, grandiose villas with driveways full of expensive cars purchased with monies, predominantly benefit handouts, tribally repatriated from the UK. Meanwhile, their encampments in the occupied territories of the UK and Europe turn out a never-ending stream of parasites, common criminals, rapists, bombers, propagandists and general duty jihadis.

Continue reading

László Földi: “The Majority of European Politicians are TRAITORS!”

The following panel discussion is from Tuesday’s Hungarian TV program “Szemtől szembe” [Face to Face]. The moderator is Balázs Somorjai, and the guests are the intelligence analyst László Földi and Zoltán Lomnici, Jr., a constitutional lawyer.

The discussion among the three men concerns the Great European Migration Crisis — its origins, causes, and intended effects. Cui bono? Who stands to make a profit from all these illiterate unemployable Muslim migrants, and how?

A civil, lucid, and reasonable discussion such as this one is all but unheard of west of the Iron Curtain. Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Should Karl Marx Receive a New Colossus as a Memorial in Trier?

As we reported here the weekend before last, May 5 was Karl Mark’s 200th birthday, and his hometown of Trier held a gala celebration that day in his honor. Former Czech President Václav Klaus spoke that day in Trier at an event sponsored by the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany).

Rembrandt Clancy has translated and subtitled President Klaus’ speech, and includes an introduction.

Should Karl Marx Receive a New Colossus as a Memorial in Trier?

Marxism is coming back in novel forms and under new flags; this time, it is less red and more green and rainbow. Marxism is coming back as the revolutionary utopianism which rejects the capitalism of today as strongly and as resolutely as did Marx one hundred and fifty years ago.

— Václav Klaus

Introduction

by Rembrandt Clancy

On 5 May in Trier, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate (Rheinland-Pfalz), a Communist Chinese-funded memorial colossus was formally erected in honour of the ideological patriarch of modern collectivism, Karl Marx. The venerable city of Trier, Marx’s birthplace, was celebrating the two-hundredth birthday of the intellectual forerunner of modern communist experiments. Among the dignitaries in attendance was the socialist Minister-President of the Palatinate, Frau Malu Dreyer (SPD). Most distinguished of all, however, was Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission and the supreme unelected representative for all of Europe. Also present was His Excellency, the Most Reverend Stephan Ackermann, Bishop of Trier, representing the once anti-Communist Roman Catholic Church. The German edition of The Epoch Times reported on the initial festivities this way:

It is similar to the dance around the golden calf: while some, with their eyes closed, celebrate that Red cult which claimed more sacrificial victims than both world wars together, other people wish to march through the city commemorating the victims.

[…]

Already on Friday, May 4, at the grand ceremony in the Basilica of Constantine [Konstantinbasilika], on the occasion of the opening of the Marx Exhibition, EU Chief Juncker and also Malu Dreyer, Minister-President of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, walked up to the pulpit under the great crucifix in the Basilica [6 May 2018].

In addition to a silent march through the city, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party sponsored an event held in the Best Western Hotel on 4 May; its theme, “Take Marx off His Pedestal”. Among the speakers was the economist and former President of the Czech Republic (2003 -2013) Václav Klaus, who in just a few words summarised how Marx’s influence in the contemporary world has been made all but invisible to ordinary people due to the aptitude of the ideology for changing its colour from red through green to all the colours of the rainbow. The subtitled video of the President’s speech, along with the English transcript, are presented below.

President Klaus, having experienced communism first hand in the former Czechoslovakia, identifies Marx as the father of political correctness, which itself is an attack on reason, or in the President’s words, “a struggle against individually responsible and independent thinking”.

The video includes only the text of President Klaus’ speech taken from the original copy found on the YouTube channel of AfD Rhineland-Palatinate.

Video Transcript

Should Karl Marx Receive a New Colossus as a Memorial in Trier?

May 4 2018
Trier

Translation by Rembrandt Clancy

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am really only a speaker, not a keynote speaker, right? I have to say that.

Many thanks for your invitation. I have never before been in Trier; so, today is the first time for me. Your city is for me an unexpected, absolute positive surprise. I have to say that very clearly.

I thank you for the invitation to this event. I wrote this in Prague very much hoping — but now I must say it as it is — hoping this event is only a recollection of Marx and not a celebration of him. Even the word recollection is not fitting. Our gathering today should be a warning against the trivialisation of the destructive influence which Karl Marx has had over the last 150 years, and, as it turns out, is continuing to have. For some of us it is incomprehensible. The unhappy experience of the 20th century should be sufficiently convincing and decisive for everyone. Unfortunately that is not so. Also for Herr Juncker that is not so.

I attentively followed all of today’s speeches. Everything has already been said. I am no expert on Karl Marx. I will not speak for long. I do not intend to analyse Karl Marx’s work or his central theses on this occasion; for that, there are other events. As a former academic, I am not given to simplified and superficial judgments.

Karl Marx was without doubt a significant and very influential thinker and ideologue. We must not oversimplify our present quarrel with Karl Marx. Marx was in any event an important representative of the social sciences — even though in my specialty of political economy he was only of secondary importance. He has not been quoted and taught in the field of economics for a long time.

I recall the statement made a half-century ago by one of the most famous economists of the second half of the twentieth century, the American Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson, who in 1968 said: Marx was an important social scientist, but “from the viewpoint of pure economic theory, he can be regarded as a minor Post-Ricardian”: “post-Ricardian” means ‘of lesser importance’ [David Ricardo (1772-1823)].* I recall this statement very well. This was a severe declaration for the times, and he made it on the occasion of Karl Marx’s hundred and fiftieth birthday. At that time, Karl Marx was, in my country — in Communist Czechoslovakia — still an important part of the official ideology. Today it is different. The star of Marx no longer shines nearly so brightly.

Continue reading

Mateusz Morawiecki and Viktor Orbán: “The Most Important Question Concerning National Sovereignty”

Yesterday Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán visited Warsaw to confer with his Polish counterpart, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. At a joint press conference afterwards, both leaders were adamant that they would not accede to the migrant quotas that the European Union is trying to impose.

In the following excerpts provided by Ruptly, the two prime ministers echo what Mr. Orbán said about immigration last Thursday in parliament after being sworn in for his new term as prime minister.

Many thanks to Ava Lon (Polish) and CrossWare (Hungarian) for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Eric Zemmour: The Growing Rift Within European Catholicism

The following clip from RTL features the popular French commentator Eric Zemmour discussing the recent decision by the Bavarian government to mandate the display of crosses in all public buildings — which caused heads to explode among European progressives.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Viktor Orbán: “The Era of Liberal Democracy Has Ended”

Earlier today I posted the complete speech given in parliament by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán after he was sworn in for his third term last Thursday.

The video below is an excerpt from that speech. It begins about halfway through and runs to the end, covering the parts that are most likely to be of interest to an international audience.

Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript (without times and edited into paragraphs):

Respected House! One can’t reform an entire nation in secret. Under my approach, which contributed to our previous successes, we are stating: THE ERA OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY HAS ENDED! It has become unsuitable for defending human dignity. It has become unfit for providing freedom. It can no longer guarantee physical safety, nor can it maintain Christian culture. There are some in Europe who still tinker with it because they think they can fix it. They do not understand that is not that the mechanism broke down, but the world changed.

Our answer, the Hungarians’ response to the changed world, was that instead of the shipwrecked liberal democracy, we built up the 21st-century Christian democracy, which guarantees human dignity, freedom, and safety. It defends the equality of man and woman, the traditional family model. It restrains anti-Semitism, defends our Christian culture, and gives our nation a chance for survival and growth. We are Christian Democrats and we want a Christian democracy.

Respected House! One can’t see the wood for the trees. If you live in the world in the drifting of everyday life, you cannot be expected to be able to realize that we are entering the era of the birth of a new order in the world, when new systems of values, new actors, new cooperations are forming. Nations keep pundits for that purpose, and among them politicians. So it is the duty of the government — among others — to bring attention to new technologies, new principles to organize the economy, new consumption patterns. New economic battlefields have emerged. New generations and new dynamics appeared. The task of the government is still to prepare Hungary, prepare the members of the Hungarian nation, for the new technological era.

In this new era, everybody must work, and today 800,000 more people work than did so eight years ago. In the new era a high level of public debt is life-threatening. Our public debt rate is 17% lower than the average in the Eurozone, while the income that required us to work for 12 months in 2010 we can now earn in eight months. In the new era, the infrastructure servicing our national ventures will be openly present on the market and it will be the deciding factor. For that reason we took the banking system, the energy and media sectors, into national hands. In the new era knowledge really will be power, so we have taken the first — but really just the first — steps towards raising the sort of young people who can always get the job done. You can see that preparation has started, but there is still a long road ahead of us.

Respected Mr. President, respected House! Its a beautiful thing, this innovation, confidence in the future, and the big plans, but besides that we must keep in mind that we are a more than thousand-year-old country. In the politics of such an ancient country there are things which are eternal. Such as the nation’s size, location, and its spirit. This must be taken into account by the prime minister stepping into office and the members of the government, but the parliamentary representatives also ought to know.

If we want to decide what the Hungarians want in the world, we must be clear about our size. Our size in the last thousand years continuously changed, but we never belonged among the large nations of the world. The situation today is that Hungarians are 0.2% of the world’s population. From this it directly follows that the survival and continuation of Hungarians is not automatic. For nations with a large populations and widespread relatives, a world where they do not exist, where their own kind simply do not exist, is unimaginable. But Hungarian politics must begin with the assumption that it is possible for us vanish, it is possible that we may scatter, it is possible to run out [of Hungarians], and the world can be imagined without the Hungarian version of Homo sapiens.

There were some who thought it was already so. Thanks to the good Lord, we are standing here today, and they are not. That is why Hungarian politics has a task, which from this view point must constantly examine Hungary and events happening in the region around Hungary. Persistence is the question of a life force. That is why the Hungarian state and the ruling Hungarian government must be stable, strong and ready for action. This [issue] is above everything else, has a higher priority.

Respected House! We are a unique kind. There is a language that only we speak. There is a world that through Hungarian language and culture only we can see and only we can describe the way it is. Without us human civilization would be short one language, bereft of one worldview, and poorer by one less description of the world. This fact should give backbone to Hungarian governments at all times. The government that knows this shall represent a Hungary to the outside world that already has a serious performance standing behind it, because we have already contributed to science, culture, sport and the arts to the overall betterment of humankind. We must live with such a country’s self-confidence and dignity, which knows that the Hungarians gave more to the world than they received. Our performance entitles us to the continuation of our history. This claim — the contribution of Hungarians — the government must continuously augment.

Respected representatives! The territory of the Carpathian valley is shared by multiple states. In addition to that historical fact, for us the Carpathian valley is an organic cultural and multilingual unity. I would like to convince our neighbors that together we could make the Carpathian valley the most secure, fastest developing, unified, commercial and economic and transportation region in Europe. In past years we gave numerous proofs that those who cooperate with us do not have to be afraid of Hungarians and will do well out of it.

Continue reading

Viktor Orbán: “My Government Will Be the Government of Free Hungarians and a Sovereign Hungary”

Last Thursday Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was sworn in for his third consecutive turn. Below is a video of the full speech he gave in parliament for the occasion. Vlad has made a shorter version containing just the second half of the speech, which holds the greatest interest for an international audience; I’ll be posting that later on.

Viktor Orbán is a titan among Western political leaders — if the leader of a country of just fifteen million people can be called that. Those who have seen the photos of him with Horst Seehofer or Geert Wilders know that he’s not a tall man, but he still stands head and shoulders above the rest.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript (without times and edited into paragraphs):

Respected President of the Republic, Mr. President of the House, respected representative colleagues: My first word is one of thanks. I would like to thank everyone who participated in the parliamentary election, no matter which candidate they voted for. Separately, for their participation I would like to thank those who chose us, the civic, nationalist and Christian forces.

Beyond thanks, I am grateful to those who supported me personally. I know that for them I owe a special obligation. I maintain my special duty towards them, and will bring it into sync with my other responsibility, which is to serve the whole country, the entire homeland, every single citizen of the nation. My government will stand on the constitutional two-thirds super-majority, but will always serve all three thirds.

Respected House [of Representatives]! I accepted the request [to form a government] of the President of the Republic. The fourth time I have taken my oath as Prime Minister in front of you. This is my eighth parliamentary cycle. I have served my country for 28 years as a parliamentary representative. I ask my representative colleagues to look at me as one of you while I serve as Prime Minister.

I continue to have the same conviction: The homeland CANNOT BE in opposition, because it is far above all parties, and its service cannot depend on whether we are in opposition or in the government. The debate, the fight, is a natural part of politics. Perhaps this is not a problem. If we bang a nail into the wall, and there is no resistance, what could we hang on that nail?

I have learned enough about human nature to know that no matter how much we long to win ever so gently, like the wind, no matter how much we would all like to be pious, accepting facts peacefully and creating agreements based on them, such a thing in the world of politics is scarcely given to us. Or if it is, perhaps only in rare moments. But I can promise, and will promise that in this house we should feel more like an angel flew over us. I will also promise my opponents that if and when a party fight cannot be avoided, I will fight by the rules of chivalry. And for the representatives on the government’s side, I will promise that in the debates, I will not remain a debtor of anybody. If they attack us, you can be sure: what goes around, comes around!

Respected House, respected representatives! Standing before you I asserted that politics is more dangerous than war, because in war one can only be killed once. This might sound frightening, but it is also an optimistic thought, because it alludes that those who are in politics may be resurrected sooner.

As for myself, I spent sixteen years in opposition, and twelve years in government. I learned: victory is never final, and defeat is never fatal. The only thing that matters is whether you are ready to continue to fight. If God permits it, and we live, at the end of this cycle we will reach the balance between my years in opposition and those in government. If at that time I still only have a draw — let’s make it clear, this is an appropriate time and place, that we are sportsmen — we will not be satisfied with only a draw.

Respected House, optimistically, with hope, and ready for action, I am standing here before you. Our completed work can give us plenty of self-confidence. If we look behind us, we can say, even including all the errata, Hungary should never be allowed to have it worse than the past eight years. The electorate must have thought the same thing; this could be behind the prosaic fact and mathematical result that the Fidesz-KDNP party alliance got more votes than all the remaining parties here put together.

And with this, my dear friends, let’s draw a crisp cut-off line. Let’s draw a border that in Hungarian politics one so rarely finds. And because one could not find it, one successively falls to one, then the other side of the horse, from the depressing Hungarian pan-pessimism, to the silly treasury optimism and back. So now let’s draw a clear line of separation between self-confidence and self-complacency. Let’s make it clear: one cannot live in the past. Let’s quote here King Stephen I. [first Christian king of Hungary]. His admonition: “Nothing can elevate you but humility; nothing can cast you down but arrogance and hatred.” Let us confess that behind the success always hides the good grace of God. That is why it is not mere speechifying rhetoric, not only tradition, but a deep belief in Soli Deo Gloria, which means: Glory to God alone.

Respected House, respected representatives. If we were to prepare ourselves in such a way, and set our thoughts in the right direction — let’s state it bravely — in the next four years we will take on grand things. We know the vegetable garden cannot be left unweeded; we must hoe it; that’s why the daily work will continue operationally at its own speed and routine. But we long for something bigger than this. We will start something really great, or more than one great thing. We also know that from a specific point of view: better a live dog than a dead lion. But now we really want to go for something big.

Continue reading

An Open Letter From István Lovas to a Toady for the German State Media

The following essay is an open letter from the Hungarian journalist and author István Lovas to a German media correspondent who takes the standard German/EU line on Hungary.

Many thanks to CrossWare for translating this piece. To the links she included I have added more for various personalities mentioned in the letter — in English when I could find them, otherwise in Hungarian:

Letter to Keno Verseck, the Budapest correspondent for Der Spiegel and Deutsche Welle

Subject: Are you crazy?

Dear Colleague!

You were interviewed on Friday with a longer interview with Deutsche Welle, a public service broadcasting in 30 languages. You know, the funding of which is also compulsory for German taxpayers, who are deliberately misled by you. As you say, democratically.

Interview theme: “Freedom of the Press”

The grand title: “In Hungary Orbán sows hatred”

As you usually do it: the use of the word “hatred” is almost always mandatory. It is particularly worshiped in titles. After that, everyone is waiting for “populist”, “nationalist”, “anti-Semitic” and similar expressions. And if it is about the Hungarian Prime Minister, then the “right-wing nationalist” prefix is obligatory before his name, unlike previously with the former Prime Ministers of Bajnai or Gyurcsány; no qualifying modifier was ever given, although the Hungarian people could recommend you a bouquet for their characterization.

Sometimes the “folk-national” sign, especially if Magdalena Marsovszky is quoted: the point is to instantly make the article credible, because each reader knows in which direction they should stand at attention.

The interview’s editorial summary: “ Hungarian correspondent Keno Verseck’s name emerged in the blacklist of journalists in newspapers close to the government. This is a clear indication that the public climate is becoming poisonous.”

The conversation begins with your colleague’s question:

The Hungarian Times, which is close to the government, published a list with the names of Hungarian correspondents. Your name appears, and you were attacked vigorously there. How did you learn that you were included?”

In your reply, you also said that the article calls on the government to “take action against us”. He adds: “It is still to be said that The Hungarian Times in Hungary is almost the official announcement medium for the government.”

He then refers to the Soros mercenary list, and writes, “This article is about us here, about foreign correspondents, from independent journalists whose reports are obviously painfully affecting the Orbán government… that is, they are tightening the reins now that Orbán wants to show how much power he has.”

Finally, you tell us that you have lived for a long time in Hungary (35 years) and are able to speak Hungarian. And you have the audacity to lie to our faces that when he was first “researched” in Hungary as a journalist, at the end of the 1980’s, the climate at that time was not as “scary” as it is today. Which in itself is characteristic of the “research” of journalists. This was the time when I was unable to obtain an entry visa for your journalism field, as I was a staff member of Radio Free Europe, although I only wanted to visit my family.

The last sentence is: “And those who feel powerless or feel that there is no way to act in opposition will leave the country.”

Continue reading

Armenia’s People-Power Revolution, Russia, and the Western Bloc

The Armenian-American writer David Boyajian provides some background for the “color revolution” currently underway in Armenia. See also this translated Bild article.

Armenia’s People-Power Revolution, Russia, and the Western Bloc

by David Boyajian

As we write this, massive peaceful civil actions against Armenia’s establishment have continued under the leadership of Nikol Pashinyan, a National Assembly (N.A.) member who is part of the opposition Yelk (Way Out) Alliance. Though widely unpopular Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan has been forced to resign, his Republican Party (RPA) still has a narrow majority (58 of 105) in the N.A. Most observers believe that the RPA members were elected through fraud, bribery, and intimidation.

The RPA’s politicians and oligarchs are also generally blamed for stealing billions of the country’s wealth; violating civil rights; debasing the judiciary and civil service; keeping the talented Armenian Diaspora at arm’s length; and failing to successfully address Armenia’s many problems: corruption, a less-than-robust economy, unemployment, outward migration, and more.

A bright spot: Landlocked Christian Armenia and its brother Artsakh/Karabagh Republic survive, even though blockaded by genocidal Turkey and Turkic/Muslim Azerbaijan who outnumber Armenians by 90 million people. This miracle is due to the tenacity of Armenia’s people and armed forces.

As Armenia is a long-time friend and admirer of our country, we Americans need to understand it.

Why Armenia Matters

The current revolution is home-grown and purely Armenian. Outside powers — whether countries or organizations — neither initiated nor control the revolution. Still, major nations definitely have strong opinions, usually unstated, about the present crisis.

Russia loathes the revolution. Russia wants Armenia to continue to be highly dependent on it for natural gas, the nuclear power plant and energy grid, investments, sophisticated weapons, and the right to travel to Russia to work and sometimes deposit stolen money. Ongoing corruption in Armenia makes it easier for Russia to bribe, intimidate, and blackmail dishonest leaders and oligarchs, represented mainly by the RPA. A Russian base guards Armenia’s border with Turkey.

Why is Russia so intent on controlling its small ally? Because without Armenia, Russia would lose its grip on the Caucasus, Caspian Sea, and probably Central Asia. The US/NATO/EU/Turkey (“Western Bloc”) would then move in. Thus perched along the Russian Bear’s soft underbelly, NATO would slice it open and have his insides for dinner. Therefore Russia needs Armenia far more than it cares to admit.

Georgia was coopted by the Western Bloc years ago. It has invested billions in Georgia, which desires NATO membership as protection against Russia.

Azerbaijan, corrupt and a virtual dictatorship, but flush with oil and gas income, has also expressed interest in joining NATO. Over 27 years, the Western Bloc has invested untold billions in Azerbaijan in such sectors as energy, banking, hotels, aviation, agriculture, and consulting. The Western Bloc has also constructed major oil and gas pipelines from Azerbaijan’s Caspian fields through Georgia and into Turkey and beyond. More such pipelines (to supply Europe) are planned.

Interestingly, Israel receives around 40% of its oil from Azerbaijan and sells it billions in weapons. Major Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Committee provide Azerbaijan political support while, sadly, a coterie of Jewish writers constantly and unfairly berate Armenia in the US and international media.

Continue reading

A Birthday Cake With 200 Candles and Blood-Red Icing

Today is the 200th birthday of Karl Marx. The occasion is being commemorated in Trier, the great philosopher’s birthplace in Rhineland-Palatinate.

Numerous dignitaries are on hand for the ceremonies, including Jean-Claude “Drunker” Juncker, the president of the European Commission. Mr. Juncker will give a speech and unveil an enormous bronze statue of the Father of Communism, which was donated to Trier for the occasion by the Red Chinese. The unveiling and speechifying may already have taken place: it’s late afternoon now in Trier.

As our own modest contribution to the joyous celebration, we are unveiling this special meme-orial image of the paladins of Communism:

I couldn’t resist digitally modifying the above photo, which accompanied a tweet from Poland Daily:

“The President of the #EuropeanCommission, Jean-Claude #Juncker, has decided to attend the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. The decision is a slap in the face of the almost 100 million EU citizens who were forced to live under communist occupation after 1945. pic.twitter.com/Mqzyc4bTlB”
https://t.co/Mqzyc4bTlB

For a dissenting point of view on the great prophet from Trier — who now rests peacefully in a cemetery in Highgate — here are excerpts from an op-ed in the Irish Times. Patrick Smyth reminds us not to conflate Mr. Marx with the tiny minority of violent extremists who have hijacked a great political philosophy and commit atrocities in its name:

Karl Marx’s insights retain their clout and relevance

Two centuries later, the ‘father of communism’ should not be judged on disciples’ excesses

by Patrick Smyth in Brussels

His view over Brussels’s magnificent Grand Place from La Maison du Cygne was a vivid architectural representation of what he was trying to write. History as class struggle.

The tall gothic and baroque guild houses, an expression of the rise to pre-eminence of the merchant bourgeoisie, and the town hall spoke of municipal power and wealth. And surrounded by a city teeming with the poor and hungry. . .

An impoverished Karl Marx, barely 30, spent three years here from 1846.

And in the back room of what is now one of Brussels’ most chic restaurants, with friend Friedrich Engels, he laboured over their most important work, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, part-groundbreaking philosophical and historical thesis, but above all a call to action that would reverberate around the world.

Two hundred years ago next Saturday, Marx was born in the small German town of Trier, where EU commission president Jean-Claude Juncker will deliver a speech for the birthday unveiling of a 5.5m statue of the local boy, a gift from the People’s Republic of China.

“Nobody can deny that Karl Marx is a figure who shaped history in one way or the other,” a commission spokeswoman defensively insisted. “Not speaking about him would come close to denying history.”

His intellectual legacy is everywhere. Last week with a laugh, a senior Irish diplomat described to me the “mao dun“ — Chinese for “internal contradiction” — at the heart of a commission proposal. Doomed, he was suggesting, like capitalism and its contradictions, to the dustbin of history.

Continue reading

Gun Control Comes to Switzerland?

The article below describes the continuing effort by the European Union to pressure Switzerland to impose strict gun control, and the apparent capitulation of the Swiss Federal Council to that pressure.

JLH, who translated the piece, includes this prefatory note:

Does Switzerland need a chapter of the NRA? As a surrounded non-member of the otherwise nearly ubiquitous EU, it is constantly under pressure to accommodate the EU’s rules and attitudes. It is reminiscent of an expression I read somewhere: “Being nibbled to death by ducks.”

Note the trilingual heading of “Hands off Swiss gun law! No to the EU fund-control law!’

The translated article from the Swiss gun rights site Finger weg vom Schweizer Waffenrecht:

Quick and Dirty: So Much Humbug From the New EU Gun Control Law

March 7, 2018

According to Duden dictionary, “humbug” means either something that pretends to be significant but is a scam, or a fatuous and silly statement or action. The EU diktat decrees that the well established and functioning Swiss gun control law is to be greatly intensified. What does that change, and why are gun owners so worked up about it? We have been asked that frequently recently. And we would like to offer a few answers.

(A paragraph recommending the reading of the texts of the EU and Swiss laws and other comments)

Legitimacy of EU Guideline as Security Measure Doubtful

1. Basis for the law change is the revision of the guideline known as “Firearms Directive,” on the control of buying and ownership of weapons (91/477/EEC[1]) — a regulation created in 1991 for the control of the internal market, especially as applicable to border-crossing shipment of weapons. This guideline was revised after the 2015 Paris attacks for the prevention of international terrorism.

We opponents of increasing the severity of the law point out that the guideline 91/477/EEC is in no way an instrument of security policy, and the present goal of exerting such massive influence on private gun ownership is absolutely not legitimate. The Czech Republic is appealing the introduction of guideline 91/477/EEC at the European court, on these and similar grounds.

Tightening in 5-Year Rhythm to Be Expected

2. Article 17 of the EU Gun Control Guideline allows the EU, beginning on September 14, 2020 (!) and every five years thereafter to review the suitability of individual provisions and subsequently, case-by-case, make new suggestions for legislation, especially in the realm of firearms.

We opponents of increasing the severity of the law note that the EU with Article 17 is allowing itself to dominate Swiss gun control law and thus removing the influence of direct democracy. Since the Swiss gun law is based on the ancient tradition of the “self-defensive Swiss” and our system of a militia army, this overreach carries great potential for conflict. Should this process become the norm in other areas of life, we are threatened with the loss of the direct influence of parliament and the people on Swiss lawmaking.

Magazine Capacity Alone Decides Lawful and Unlawful

3. So Switzerland adopts from EU’s guideline the banning of certain firearms on their magazine capacity alone, that is, moving them from the category of requiring a permit to forbidden. So the same gun can be interpreted legally in two different ways — allowed or forbidden. The only difference is an object presently not legally defined: the magazine.

We opponents of increasing the severity of the law submit that an object that can be bought easily internationally and is already present in Switzerland by the hundreds of thousands cannot be brought forth to ban a gun. Specifically, a pistol is forbidden if it has a 21-cartridge magazine. With a 20-cartridge magazine, it is eligible for a permit. Both gun and magazine can be taken from the owner if an over-large magazine should be found in the possession of a gun owner with no special permit. The same is true for all long guns. The limit there is 10 bullets. The newer Swiss military service rifles have magazines that hold 20 or 24.

Continue reading

Michael Stürzenberger on Muslim Jew-Hatred in Germany

The well-known German Counterjihad activist Michael Stürzenberger has been prosecuted more than once, and even been convicted, for his “Islamophobia” (the conviction was for posting on Facebook a historical photo of a meeting between Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem).

In the video below, Mr. Stürzenberger discusses the massive wave of Jew-hatred in Germany that arises from the “new Germans” — who just happen to be Muslims.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The Yearning for and the Right to a Homeland

The Yearning for and the Right to a Homeland

About the Author

Rev. Prof. Wolfgang Ockenfels OP was born in Bad Honnef am Rhein in 1947. Having entered the Dominican Order in 1967, he studied Philosophy and Theology and was ordained in 1973. From 1974 to 1978 he read Social Ethics and Economics in Freiburg, Switzerland. His doctoral thesis was on the theme of Unions and the State. In 1984 he completed his habilitation in the field of Christian Social Doctrine at the University of Augsburg on the subject of faith and politics. Since 1985 Prof. Ockenfels has been a (full) professor for Christian Social Science in the theological faculty in Trier. He has published a very long list of monographs, articles and contributions. Since 1985 he has been Chief Editor of Die Neue Ordnung, a Christian journal founded in 1946 by opponents of National Socialism.

The original source appeared as an editorial in Die Neue Ordnung, April Nr. 2/2018

by Wolfgang Ockenfels
April 2018

Translation by Rembrandt Clancy

Strange, how quickly a conservative topic such as longing for one’s “homeland” is coming to light on the agendas of the day; and how busily, yet sluggishly official governmental action wears itself against this theme and threatens to burst into flame. That is no accident, for the homeland question has become politically central and contentious ever since alternative parties and identity movements have taken up the issue, indeed, across Europe and worldwide and with increasing success. The local power-elites, the cosmo-politicians who enthuse in all directions, rightly experience this as a threat, for it imperils them with the loss of power in their homelands. Well, why shouldn’t it, after all? In a democracy and a market economy competition has always been experienced as a danger to the prevailing monopoly on power. It is precisely for this reason that these liberal-democratic structures were invented, so that a violence-free, peaceful transition of power can occur at all.

According to Karl R. Popper, to whom Catholic social thinking was rather remote, the advantage of democracy consists not in constantly confirming the supposed good in politics, but in minimising the experiential evil and voting it out of office. Therein lies the crux of democracy. From this critical perspective, conservative Catholics especially find a political homeland in democracy, which is obligated not only to the formal principle of majority rule, but especially to natural human rights.[1] When these, for instance, are approved [freigegeben] for an arbitrary [willkürlich] power-political interpretation; that is, when a “human right” to kill unborn life or life unworthy” of human life [“lebensunwerten” Menschenlebens][2] is claimed in accordance with the temper of the times and enforced across Europe, the hour for democratic resistance has struck. Here vigilant Christians need not first wait for the official approval of their spiritual leaders.

Combining democratic criteria with an emotional or patriotic idea of a homeland, or even with a “right to a homeland”, may represent to the tradition-forsaken C-Parties [CDU/CSU][3] a lunatic distortion. But what will one not do for the sake of holding on to political power? The success of another makes for envy and greed, and so it is not surprising if, in the competition for political power, those who have held it until now cut a thick slice off of the successful opponent. The latter, of course, are supposed to have “instrumentalised” the traditional concept of homeland, whilst the former prepare to “occupy” the venerable idea in a new way and use “social construction” to fill it with content, an age-old semantic strategy, which did not fall into disrepute for the first time through nominalistic hermeneutics[4] and the terminological fraud of the sixty-eighters.

Let us remain in the realm of reality. First there is the consequence of chaotic “globalisation” bent on pushing through its “capitalism” without consideration for cultural, religious, ecological and social losses. But even at the European level, it is becoming apparent that identity with the homeland and national responsibility can no longer be suppressed by abstract, cosmopolitan unity-slogans. On the contrary, more and more Europeans are inquiring after a socioeconomic policy which will come to their defence against an anonymous capitalist power which completely abhors restriction by the personal principle of subsidiarity.[5] However, it was precisely in this principle that the contribution of Catholic social teaching to the Constitution of Europe came to light. But since then Europe has fallen into a centralised construct which no longer inquires into its Christian origins, but merely seeks the short-term economic efficiency of a “levelling solidarity” in the interests of the communitarisation of debt and the “saving” of the euro.

Continue reading

Against the Murdering, Thieving Hordes of Pakistanis (Part 1)

Those who hope to read more from the diabolical El Ingles are encouraged to make a contribution to his social welfare fund. Alas, he is no longer in a situation that would allow him to write such long, involved pieces without some sort of financial remuneration. If any of his past writings have been of value to you, please consider showing your appreciation via PayPal, using the button below.

 

The following essay by El Inglés is the first of a three-part report on the Pakistanis. It is being posted this week to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the publication of Surrender, Genocide… or What?, which caused the ejection of Gates of Vienna from Pajamas Media. For more on the memorable events of 2008, see this post.

Against the Murdering, Thieving Hordes of Pakistanis

by El Inglés

Introduction

It will not have escaped the attention of anyone likely to read this essay that the last few years have seen a sharp increase in the severity of the problems created in European countries by Muslims. Developments have, we feel, reached a point where we need to commit the unforgivable offence of stating the obvious: certain populations currently resident in certain European countries need to leave. Given that they will not leave willingly, they will have to be forced out.

Of course, we are not so arrogant as to make any concrete suggestions as to who exactly these peoples might be in European countries other than our own. This is a matter for the respective peoples of those countries to decide for themselves: the Dutch in the Netherlands, the French in France, the Germans in Germany. Being British, we will limit ourselves to considering courses of action that should be taken by the British people. In this particular document, we advocate more specifically the driving out of the Pakistani Muslim diaspora of the United Kingdom. Readers should note that this term includes all people of Pakistani Muslim origin in the UK, irrespective of the citizenship they might hold.

We will start by looking at the country of Pakistan itself, in an attempt to root it more firmly in our minds. Here, we apologize in advance for any psychological damage inflicted upon our unsuspecting readers by this sudden, up-close-and-personal exposure to the horrors of this deeply unpleasant country. Spoiler alert: it is precisely the type of place one would expect, given the assiduously pestilential and malevolent diaspora it has bestowed upon us.

Having given the reader some sort of grounding in what Pakistan actually is, we will draw out certain key themes to demonstrate the cultural, religious and psychic continuity of Pakistanis in Pakistan and the Pakistani Muslim diaspora in the United Kingdom. This will allow us to illustrate what a damaging and contaminating presence they are. It is worth pointing out here that a small fraction of the population of Pakistan consists of non-Muslim groups such as Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus. These people are not the focus of our analysis; the term Pakistani should not be taken as referring to them unless specified; and, for what little it is worth, we extend to them our heartfelt sympathies that they should be exposed, day in, day out, to the tender mercies of Pakistani Muslims.

Next, we will lay out in some detail just what sort of policies we believe a future British government could and should implement in order to force out the Pakistani diaspora of the UK. Let us be clear — we are not engaging in some sort of blue-sky thinking about what the government could do in principle to achieve this objective. We are explicitly advocating everything we discuss in the section in question, unless we specify to the contrary. This point will become clearer during the relevant discussion.

Welcome to Pakistan

Such are the horrors and madness it encompasses that one must occasionally, as one reads about Pakistan and its multifarious peoples, stop and remind oneself that the country is, in fact, real; that it does, in fact, exist. It is not a satirical construct created to warn us of the dangers of certain courses of action, or modes of thought. Nor is it a light-hearted alien world dreamt up by the creators of a piece of science fiction. We know that it is real for two reasons: a) its people increasingly infest our own country, the United Kingdom, and logic dictates that they must have originated somewhere; and b) the current author actually read a book on Pakistan by way of basic research for this essay — Pakistan, A Hard Country.

Yes, reader! Lest you convince yourself that we writers are an effete and weak-willed bunch, we would point out that this particular writer read the best part of an entire book on the subject of this nasty, depressing dirthole. Such is his dedication to the cause of learning and reflection. Admittedly, he skipped most of the section on Balochistan, which was even more disturbing and depressing than the rest of the country. Nonetheless, the reader should not conclude on this basis that this author’s commitment to excellence in research is anything less than total.

Here I must apologize to the author of this reference work, one Anatol Lieven. He would doubtless be dismayed to discover that the fruit of his labours was to be used as fuel for the arguments of those who believe that the Pakistani population of the UK is a fifth column that deserves only to be driven out with all haste. This is, nonetheless, a pressing matter, and his sensibilities will not lead us to refrain from looking at Pakistan and its diaspora in the UK with a sceptical eye and rendering such judgement as we deem appropriate.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Let us then throw together a brief and eclectic country summary for Pakistan, a sort of through-the-looking-glass travel guide for those with an interest in the country. Pakistan came into existence in 1947, when British India was partitioned to create two new countries: India and Pakistan. That the two countries grew out of British imperial history has allowed the denizens of the Indian sub-continent to blame the white man for every affliction they have suffered in the last 70 years, even when the affliction in question consists of their murdering each other, with no obvious reluctance, over such things as: their freely-chosen religions; a cow; a pig or part thereof; damage inflicted upon a book; conflicting interpretations of the mutterings of a mad 7th-century Arab; illicit love between boy and girl; or, in extreme cases, illicit love between boy and livestock (though this last occurs relatively seldom and is usually hushed up before it hits Instagram). Verily, the powers of the white man are all-encompassing!

The proud new country of Pakistan consisted of modern-day Pakistan (then West Pakistan) and modern-day Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) as well. What, precisely, these two groups of people saw in each other that should have led them into this unhappy union remains a profound mystery. Regardless, the new country disintegrated in 1971 as the Bangladeshis (which is to say, the East Pakistanis) rose up against Pakistani (which is to say, West Pakistani) rule, were horribly brutalized, and were then rescued by the Indians. East Pakistan thus became Bangladesh, a country afflicted to this very day by two apparently insoluble problems: firstly, the country was built in the middle of a river; and secondly, it is full of Bangladeshis. Bangladesh and its UK diaspora will be subjected to analysis in future works. Here, we must satisfy ourselves with the observation that the country is not on our bucket list.

West Pakistan had now been shorn of its Bangladeshi ballast by an Indian Army that, though no match for the inscrutable Orientals on the other side of the Himalayas, could still at the very least give the bally Pakis what for. Before this second great partition of India, East and West Pakistan together had constituted a desperate, pre-modern, sectarian, tribal, Muslim hellhole that had a disconcerting tendency to be devastated by floodwaters coming down from the Tibetan plateau. Radically transformed by the war of 1971, West Pakistan (henceforth simply Pakistan) now stood ready to embrace a brighter future as a desperate, pre-modern, sectarian, tribal, Muslim hellhole that had a disconcerting tendency to be devastated by floodwaters coming down from the Tibetan plateau. Only one thing stood in its way: it was soon discovered that the country was full of Pakis, and therefore doomed.

The official languages of Pakistan are Urdu and English. The latter is the language of a now-despised group of ex-colonial overlords known to history as the British. The former is an Indian language brought to Pakistan around the time of Partition in 1947 by the northern Indian Muslim elites who, in a huff over not being granted what they saw as equal rights in what would have been a united India, engineered the creation of Pakistan itself. These people, referred to collectively as the Mohajirs, settled largely in the city of Karachi, which is the capital city of the state of Sindh. The Mohajirs, coming from India, are some of the truest believers in the political project that is Pakistan. Reader, one’s belief in the political project that is Pakistan must be profound indeed if one is actually motivated to go and live there; all the people who are already there want to live in Bradford.

Despite being the capital of Sindh, Karachi has few Sindhis in it, as it was largely overwhelmed by said Mohajirs. These people have come to be despised as invaders and oppressors by the Sindhis, who are numerically dominant in Sindh outside of Karachi. This means that both official languages of Pakistan are the languages of peoples despised as invaders by a substantial fraction of the population. Imagine Chinese having two official languages, English and Japanese, and you will be on the right lines.

The other main group of people in Karachi is the Pathans, whose generally florid and pleasant nature quickly reveals itself to those who peruse the news coming out of the Afghan-Pakistani border area. Other Pakistanis love the Pathans when they, the Pathans, are killing Americans in Afghanistan, and despise and fear them at all other times, viewing them as sensible Western peoples tend to view Pakistanis more generally: primitive, barbaric, fanatical, rapidly-reproducing savages with whom some sort of Ragnarok-style battle will eventually be inevitable. The Pathans are convinced they are an inoffensive, decent people who are inexplicably loathed despite their contribution to the vibrant, multicultural tapestries that are Karachi and Quetta.

Continue reading