Majorityrights Central > Category: Immigration

...or Schulzed..

Nigel Farage looks on as European Commission’s President Jean-Claude Juncker (L)
kisses the forehead of President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz Photo: AFP

Telegraph, “Juncker calls for ‘compulsory’ redistribution of 160,000 migrants”, 9 Sep 2015.

Breitbart, BREXIT BENCH TEST: Dutch Voters Set To Oppose EU Expansion In Referendum THIS WEEK, 3 April 2016:

Dutch voters will decide on Wednesday whether to support a European treaty deepening ties with Ukraine in a referendum that will test sentiment towards Brussels ahead of Britain’s June Brexit vote and could also bring a boost for Russia.

[...]

Any rejection by Dutch voters or by the government would give Russian President Vladimir Putin, who opposes deeper EU-Ukraine ties and who many Dutch blame for the downing by pro-Russian rebels of a plane travelling from Amsterdam, a victory in his war of words with the West.

[...]

“PUTIN’S SHADOW”

The government itself shied away from framing the vote in a Russian context but shifted tactic as the referendum approaches.

[...]

“Vladimir Putin’s shadow is lurking fairly significantly over this treaty,” said “yes” campaigner Joshua Livestro, arguing that a “no” vote will play into Putin’s hands.

“Are we now going to give Putin what he wants after all?” he said.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s cabinet initially stressed the treaty’s economic benefits, but has since focused on its importance for Ukrainian reform in the areas of corruption, human rights and democracy.

“Everyone who wants progress in Ukraine is asking us to vote ‘yes,’ along with 27 other countries. That’s what the referendum is about and nothing else,” Deputy Prime Minister Lodewijk Asscher said on Friday.

“No” campaigners say the treaty is a first step toward full EU membership. “Legal scholars call it quasi membership,” said Baudet.

Many Ukrainian politicians feel their country deserves the treaty and are keen to show they have made progress in aligning their country with EU standards since the 2014 uprising that toppled pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovich.

In a Dutch television interview on Sunday, Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin emphasized progress in areas such as gay and transgender rights where the Dutch have always viewed themselves as progressive leaders.

“In the past 24 months since Maidan we’ve done more reforms than in the last 24 years,” he said.

Considering “Putin’s shadow” seemed as if it might be the issue up to this point.

But if the West is going to help Ukraine, it would do well to get a grip of its own reins.

Part of why gays are not typically worth making a litmus test and taking issue with in a negative sense is because they are not a big deal to normal people - they’re a small percentage of the population, a biological fact of given populations and most people aren’t interested in persecuting them or going to their bars. So why take the matter to PC hyperbole and bring it up as a salient issue, with even tranny tolerance a litmus test to consideration for European cooperation? PC is the last thing that Ukraine needs if our purpose is to secure its EGI along with that of other ethnostates.

Apparently the PTB (Powers That Be) understand that most people will not care but some will over-react to that PC angle, at a volume that might be appropriate if, instead, the PTB had explicitly stated that their displaying good-will to “diversity” and “multiculturalism” was the litmus test for their acceptability to the European Union. Thus would-be ethno-nationalists will divert their energy to that trivia (trannies, etc) and tar and obfuscate opposition to issue that is really important - so called “diversity” which is, in fact imposition of foreign populations - by associating such opposition with those who are hysterical and lacking the judgement of important priority.

Ah yes, when people balk, the PTB can back-off of pushing the “transgender” and gay issue out of respect for Judeo-Christian values; and perhaps most important of all, out of respect for Islam; then we can all agree that Ukraine needs to be tolerant of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” - unlike those hysterical, illiberal, non-Westernized, intolerant people who do not like transgenders - and then it will be ready to be Merkeled with the rest of Europe.

           
            Jez Turner - the nation is a lifeboat

Sometimes I notice stories that are so awful that I almost think it’s some kind of joke, before I realise that it’s actually serious.

Here’s one such example of this:

Daily Mail, ‘Militant teachers demand schools stop promoting ‘British values’ as it makes children from other cultures feel inferior’, 28 Mar 2016:

That moment when memes meet reality.

• Guidelines want to encourage children to appreciate British values
• But teachers reject the move, which they say is linked to colonialism
• Critics have accused teaching unions of waging ‘ideological war’

Teachers are demanding that schools stop promoting ‘fundamental British values’ over claims it could make children think other cultures are inferior.

The National Union of Teachers said telling children about the country’s democracy, law and traditions could encourage ‘cultural supremacy’ and urged a new focus on ‘international human rights’ instead.

Under government guidelines, which are aimed at tackling extremism in the wake of the Trojan Horse scandal, children must be taught about being a British citizen as well as tolerance other faiths and lifestyles.

However, union leaders said the term was demeaning to other cultures ‘particularly in the context of multicultural schools and the wider picture of migration’.

Delegates passed a motion in favour of campaigning to scrap it during the NUT annual conference in Brighton today.

Christopher Denson, an NUT representative from Coventry, said: ‘We need to fight to reject this notion of British values, to fight for notions of human values and human rights.

‘We have to stand together across communities to bring down barriers, bring down borders, to say no to Islamophobia, no to anti-Semitism, no to fascism and any form of racism.’

The motion said that migrants make a ‘huge economic, political and social contribution’ to the country and that public services and businesses would ‘face severe difficulties’ without them.

It criticised the government for only taking in a ‘minute fraction’ of refugees and vowed to campaign for ‘policies that welcome’ them to the country.

The union agreed to ‘gather and collate’ teaching materials on migrants and refugees for members to use in classrooms from now on.

Mr Denson said he disliked using the term ‘fundamental British values’ in his classroom when many of his pupils had ancestry in countries which had encountered British colonialism.

He said: ‘The inherent cultural supremacism in that term is both unnecessary and unacceptable.

‘And seen with the Prevent agenda, it belies the most thinly veiled racism and a conscious effort to divide communities.’

He added: ‘It’s our duty to push real anti-racist work in all schools. And that doesn’t mean talk of tolerating other’s views, but genuine, inclusive anti-racist work.’

He said he had requested a week of themed assemblies every year in his school, with topics including apartheid and the rise of Islamophobia ‘in the context of anti-Semitism in the 1930s’.

‘This year we focussed on the migrant crisis in Calais, the Mediterranean and beyond,’ he added.

‘We organised a politics day for Year 8s [aged 12 to 13] in the week before Easter.

‘They had a day to form a political party in their tutor groups to come up with a manifesto, film a broadcast, and make banners and take part in a debate.

‘Apart from the quality of the work, the other thing that really made my proud was that every single tutor group had as a policy, ‘refugees welcome, open the borders’.

‘We need to be pushing at every level for anti-racism to be in the core curriculum for every child.’

Many of the activists at the conference said they had been to migrant camps over the channel to take food and provisions.

Christine Blower, general secretary of the NUT said: ‘Schools and teachers play a key role in welcoming migrant and refugee children and young people to this country, and supporting their progress within schools.

‘The NUT condemns the Government’s inadequate response to the current migrant situation, which has exacerbated the suffering for so many, including school-age children and young people.

‘The NUT has produced a guide to Welcoming Refugee Children to your School and has a dedicated section on its website for teaching resources which have been provided by teachers for teachers, on the issue.

‘The NUT will continue to work with Show Racism the Red Card, Hope Not Hate and others, to campaign for Government policies that welcome migrants and refugees to this country. The NUT will also continue to press for anti-racism work to be enshrined within the curriculum of all schools.’

The requirement on schools to teach fundamental British values was introduced in 2014 in a bid to crack down on extremism in schools.

It followed the Trojan Horse scandal, in which state schools in Birmingham were infiltrated by hardliners who tried to impose an Islamic agenda.

Ofsted, the schools regulator, has been penalising schools which do not sufficiently show that they are promoting British values.

Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: ‘Teachers should not be playing the role of fifth columnists in the ideological war currently being fought over our national identity and our national sovereignty.

‘Teaching children that British values are part of “cultural supremacism” will, at best, make them feel guilty about being British and, at worst, radicalise them in order to ‘make up’ for the sins of their fathers.

‘If one wishes to destroy a nation and build a “brave new world” you begin by indoctrinating and brainwashing the children.

‘This process of ‘re-education’ has started some years ago in our schools and we are, now, seeing its consequences in the suppression of free speech on our university campuses.

‘The notion of ‘value relativism’ - that all views are equally valid - has reached saturation point in our schools.

‘In many classrooms this has led to the views of terrorists being given equal weigh to those of the victim of terrorism. Against this background the latest motions from the NUT come as no surprise, at all.’

The Department for Education has been contacted for comment.

I’m sure that the Department for Education will be just as speechless as I am right now.

Dugin/Stark interview: Beginning concession to White Post Modernity

Whereas he used to have a completely botched notion of post modernity - mixing-up what should be the antidote to modernity and liberalism with liberalism itself - it now appears that we are improving Dugin’s understanding - viz., that modernity is the problem and the essence of liberalism.

His ideas in this talk are largely amenable and well considered.

His proposition that the state is a bit too much of an artifice to suffice by itself and that there needs to be a hypothesized realm, as we would say, beyond the physically verified moment, which girds and orients a people, is also well considered.

However, now that we are getting him to a better understanding of “post moderntiy”, viz. White post modernity, we need to get him to a better understanding of biological reality and “racism.”

Anti-racism is the quintessential modernist liberal notion; it is a Cartesian farce: It has been proposed as innocent but it is not -

Anti-racism is prejudiced, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

For “racism” is a necessary concept in a benign form, which is not supremacism nor a singular conclusion to aggrandizement and annihilation of an opposing people (as YKW propose and liberals might accept as a definition). It is in fact, a practical concept that is practiced by ordinary people everyday of necessity, as a non-Cartesian requirement of the human condition, of being in the world - one must discriminate in human-sized categories, including social classification - of one’s own people and of other peoples - to form a coherent basis of ones own and to form a basis of human ecologies for our systemic coherence, social accountability, warrant and agency.

These classifications are “hermeneutic”, that is to say that they are not absolutely empirically based in every moment, as the taken-for-granted and the state of partial knowledge - faith, if you will - must subsist behind the working hypothesis.

Call it a working hypothesis, call it faith, call it rules, call it narrative, call it taken for granted, call it the partly unknown, call it a mystery, a quest, an adventure, some of that as you must, some of it you might, as it has practical function to ensconce the under-determining facts of the empirical; but I have believed and continue to believe that a sacred overlay, in orientation and guidance of a people is a good idea.

I believe that it is a hermeneutic notion nevertheless, which is itself accountable to deal concretely with biology, sex and genetics, mediating toward fairness and justice in regards to this social capital - otherwise, without this empirical accountability, this “spiritual” realm will be the realm of evil charlatans.

60 Minutes News Crew Attacked

Police decline to go into the Somali area with reporters.

Who are then greeted by assault

READ MORE...

It’s all worse, more organized and more them than even you think.

Click the image for a video of Bill Clinton presenting his usual stump on behalf of Hillary to a synagogue audience in Illinois.

The “inclusive, inclusive, inclusive” bit was frightening in the 1990s, when he was running for President, because “inclusive” can be a good concept when applied within a legitimate classification; and at the time there was more chance that it could have been honestly mistaken as if that’s what he meant; and not heard as what he actually means, which is the Jewish “inclusive” - a hyper-liberal inclusiveness that would include everybody [and he does emphasize everybody] - people formerly from without of a racial classification and formerly outside of the nation. This paradoxical “inclusiveness” would ultimately dissolve the classification, the nation, the people, the tribe altogether - viz., it would dissolve the very thing to be included-in.

It would dissolved to a vague catch-all category of undifferentiated gentile others; while one tribe would maintain its distinction, of course.

In 2016 it sounds less frightening than totally absurd given the floods of immigration into The U.S. and Europe. This audience in the synagogue reacts only with applause either because they are completely blind to the fact that they are being herded, thinking that they can maintain their Jewish sanctioned activist distinctions indefinitely, or because they are in on the joke.

Their biggest applause are reserved for when Bill says that what he is most proud of is that Hillary distinguishes herself from the other candidates by more fervently denouncing prejudice against Muslim Americans (following the Noachide laws apparently being good enough to qualify people for inclusion as Americans). Bill concludes by rubbing his hands together with the audience over the prospect (given Scalia’s death) of Hillary putting through another “Justice” just as good as the one that he put on the Court -

Bill literally wept before America, so moved as he was when his nominee had ascended to The Supreme Court.

     
(Doug Mills/Associated Press)

Among Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s first statements was to maintain her long standing conviction as a “civil rights” advocate that nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics.

European peoples, the time for being alarmed or despairing over this has long since passed. The neo-liberal complicity with the Jewish notion of “including ‘marginals” is, as I have said in several places, a paradoxical notion of “inclusion” that they have put together with an inverted notion of “marginals” - a notion of “marginals” by which they mean not marginals, as that would imply those who are just within our boundaries but being pushed to the side and ultimately outside - they mean rather taking in those from without.

With the flooding incursion of migrants and the chutzpah of this inclusion rhetoric absurdly unabated, it is time to see all of this for what it is and to organize as Whites/Native Europeans - maintaining our important distinctions and bounds as they provide accountability and serve our human ecologies, sure; but recognizing that we must coordinate our defense with overall organization as European peoples.

We are under attack for that reason in essence, no matter where or what we might take recourse to in lieu of defending ourselves on that basis. Wherever we are, we are in need of a union, unions and coordination of defense based on our most precious and essential bond - that is our DNA.

Europeans can no longer afford to tarry uncritically with those who would proceed with the modernist bastard child that is universal principles and rights, nor cater to those who would attempt to “save us” with neo-traditional re-organizations under the anachronistic rubric and poison rule structures of “Christendom.”

These aren’t surrogates for our DNA and biology - in lieu of that rather, they are midwives to the birthing of pan-mixia and our genocide.

Picture a cartoon illustration here that I had to take down due to EU law. Its title reads “Jews, Musilims, Christians.” Beneath that title it shows the identical happy self hand clasping merchant three times - their only being dressed differently and having slightly different skin tone - the obvious implication being that there is no important difference. There is a sarcastic sub-title: “know the difference, it could save your nation” and a conclusive line, “Semitic Religion, not even once.” Which is the same as saying, Abrahamic religion, not even once.

The time has also passed to be surprised or despair at how the all too kosher Merkel will act quite similarly with regard to our borders on the European end, and how the Noachide sheep will react to those who would oppose her - marking little difference between Europeans in America or here in Europe, as they continue to operate under the same neo-liberal rule structures and Noachide law. The time is now to wrest and forge our rule structure anew in organization and activism of the White Class.

Jesus said, “I give to you this cracker, so that future generations will remember that I looked Hu-white to you.”

The rollercoaster won’t stop

No matter how much you might want to get off of this rollercoaster, by some twist of fate it just never seems to end. Here’s the latest development that Christians are bringing from (((Jesus of Nazareth’s))) mouth to your ears.

Jim Wallis, the founder of the Christian magazine Sojourners, thinks that Christianity has not done enough yet to destroy Europeans physically and psychologically, and so he has some advice which is sure to make you want to kill yourself:

The Oregonian, ‘White Christians need to repent for systemic racism, author says’, 17 Feb 2016:

Wallis is president and founder of the Christian magazine Sojourners and has served President Barack Obama as a spiritual advisor. He has authored 12 books as well as columns for The New York Times and The Washington Post.

His newest book, “America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America,” is an indictment of white Christian apathy and inaction towards systemic racism.

“The political and economic problems of race are ultimately rooted in a theological problem,” he writes.

Modern white Christians might not own slaves or even all walk to the other side of the street to avoid passing a young black man, but they do benefit from white privilege, he said, whether they’re aware of it or not.

“To benefit from oppression is to be responsible for changing it,” he writes.

Wallis will be in Portland early next week as part of his book tour, which he’s turned into a series of town halls by inviting faith leaders in each city to join him for a public conversation about racism. Wallis and local pastor Leroy Barber will speak at Powell’s City of Books at 7:30 p.m. Feb. 22.

Ahead of his visit, we talked to Wallis about a few major issues raised in the book. His responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Q: You argue that racism – not just personal feelings of hate, but allowance of systematic injustice – results from problematic theology. What theological misconception do you identify at the core of modern white churches that are apathetic or inactive with regards to race?

A: In Galatians, 3:28, it says there is no Jew or gentile, slave or free, male or female – we’re all one in Christ Jesus. If churches are just silos of people like each other, we’re really not doing what it we’re supposed to do. Martin Luther King Jr. called people of God the “beloved community.” We’re supposed to be the ones who are demonstrating a diverse “beloved community.” Our theology is supposed to trump our sociology.

If you don’t want to do that, you’d better go somewhere else. This community is all about braking down those barriers. If churches are just silos of people like each other, we’re really not doing what it was supposed to do.

[...]

Q: You call on white Christians to “die to whiteness,” saying that “whiteness” is an idol that separates white Christians from God. What does “dying to whiteness” mean?

A: Whiteness is a myth. Race was created as a social construct to justify oppression. How do we get our souls back? It’s an idolatry, really. Idols separate us from God.

Dying to whiteness means to be aware of white privilege. For example, I tell a story in the book about being a little league coach. Parents of my black players had to have “the talk” with their kids, and my white parents were clueless. It’s unacceptable that my kids’ classmates and teammates had to be told they couldn’t trust their law enforcement officers. That’s a problem for me and white parents, not just black parents.

[...]

Yes, you read that correctly, it says ‘dying to whiteness’. Really. This is a thing now.

‘Dying to whiteness’ is when white people decide not to recognise the existence of their own ethnic group, and as such become ontologically incapable of enunciating ideas about the defence of that ethnic group.

You can’t defend a thing that you don’t recognise as existing.

If this isn’t ‘white genocide’ then I don’t know what is. Given the present situation, how anyone anywhere could even be considering calling for more Europeans to join these institutions is something that is simply baffling to consider.

The rollercoaster continues rolling for its own sake

A lot of pro-Christians who like to fancy themselves as ethno-nationalists, tend to respond to this sort of article by trying desperately to trace out the history of a supposedly militant Christianity that once-upon-a-time defended the integrity of European ethnic groups. They seem to believe these legends are a suitable rebuttal to the reality which is playing out right in front of them today.

But history will not let them retreat into legends from the classical age. All of this must be understood as a process. Understanding the dialectic of structure and history will enable people to understand how the position of Christian institutions only seemed to move, but in fact they maintained an ‘immobile motion’ which kept them firmly in their place.

What do I mean by this?

The first priority of any expansionist ideological institution that operates on a subscription basis, is to fund itself and expand the number of people who are subscribing to its memes where possible. The second priority of such an institution is to manoeuvre itself in the market, so that it can comfortably keep ahead of global demographic trends.

The rollercoaster doesn’t care about you

In the past era, Christianity appeared to care about the fate of European societies and the cohesiveness of European population groups, because Europeans were the only societies that were furnishing soldiers which were willing to fight to perpetuate the existence of the church institutions, or to give such institutions access to more territories to recruit followers from, or to take populations away from doctrinal rivals, and so on.

As a testament to the success of that strategy, the main church institutions were able to survive into the modern era, and Christianity grew as a religion by following Europeans wherever they went on the planet.

In the present era, Christianity no longer has to care about the fate of European societies or the cohesiveness of European population groups, because the Christian institutions don’t actually need to parasitically extract wealth from European societies in order to exist anymore. They now have the prospect of taking advantage of the single fastest-growing demographic in the entire world, Africa. Africans are more willing to accept the Christian memes than anyone else is, and as such and an almost guaranteed revenue source for Christian institutions.

The fact that Christianity has within these last 100 years freed itself from the shackles of having to care about Europeans at all in any sense, is not a distortion of Christianity, but rather, the logical end result that it had always striven for. If the past era could be understood as a ‘Northern and Central European compromise’ which occurred after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and the loss of the food-basket territories of Egypt and Syria, the present era could be recognised as the fulfilment of the success of that compromise, since Christianity can now ‘go global’ once again and break that compromise, and it is doing so with gusto.

The accumulation of capital from land ownership, financial holdings, relationships with prosperous Northern and Central European states, and so on, is now being reinvested by Christian institutions into a full drive toward carrying out the actions necessary to position themselves to take advantage of the growing populations in Africa and other areas in the periphery.

Their number one priority did not change. It only seemed to change in the eyes of some people, and the only people who are perceiving a ‘change’, are those Europeans who in some kind of fatal conceit started to think that Christianity was somehow about them.

In fact, back then, Christianity was about the survival of Christianity and maintaining or expanding the wealth of its institutions. Now in the present day, Christianity is about the survival of Christianity and maintaining or expanding the wealth of its institutions.

See? No change.

Newsflash, Europeans: Christianity is not about you. It was never about you. Christianity is about perpetuating its own existence. It doesn’t care about you, and it never did. It is a religion that (((originated))) in the Middle East and Africa, and it is there to which it will demographically return. That Christian institutions are now pushing anti-racialist memes more fervently than they ever have before, is something which is simply inherent in the logic of events.