Majorityrights Central > Category: Journalism

               
Die Linke’s parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi. Photo: DPA

Its egregious intentions betray its egregious misnomer as “The Left” by the YKW media. Whereas a White Left would be a union of the entire nation of native peoples and thus organized in entirety against immigrant imposition - these workers and beneficiaries being the theoretical equivalent of scabs - and the consequences of elite betrayal. Accordingly, a true European Nationalist Left would not be of just one class, say the workers, let alone be in representation of scabs (foreigners) - as the latter in particular would be defined properly not as The Left but rather as a Neo-Liberal concern imposed on the classification of native national interests. The reason for the misnomer is plain, the YKW and the sell-outs, particularly of the international corporatist order, do not want us to be clear in the organizational concern of that union, which is a merging, in fact an overlap, of the class with native nationalism. Instead they want it associated with what is most repugnant to our interests.

The YKW and corporate elite sell-outs are aligned in this perversion of class interests - you can be even more afraid now as they obligingly ask:

“What does the Left Party want for Europe?”

The “Left Party” (wink), read “neo-liberal” and ask rather, what union of your interests do they represent - i.e., how are they a leftist union for you as a native European? Particularly when they advocate (hyerpbolic) neo-liberal policies as such?

“Die Linke is now the third biggest group in the German parliament, but what do their politicians want for Europe?”

Gysi pretends the leftist, denouncing the The EU for “pursuing ‘neo-liberal’ policy:”

“Die Linke overtook rivals the Greens ... to become the country’s third biggest parliamentary group – and has since made waves in foreign policy by its outspoken condemnation of US spying and conciliatory attitude to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Their charismatic parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi added to his party’s critical stance towards the EU system in an interview with Die Zeit newspaper. ‘It is pursuing a neo-liberal economic policy and stands for the opposite of socialism,’ he said.”

But then his party pursues this policy on immigration -

“Mobility and Immigration

Die Linke’s policy on immigration stands out from major parties by appearing dramatically in favour of making Europe more refugee-friendly.

They claim to promote the ‘unconditional right to stay and proper accommodation, social protection and equal rights for all refugees.’

And according to their manifesto, they also support refugees’ free choice of which country they wish to seek asylum in, as well as demanding the dissolution of EU border agency Frontex.”

You can’t get much more neo-liberal than that.

What does that have to do with the unionized representation of native European national interests?

We hear nothing representing the unionized interests of native European nationals in YKW media. Our interests are ignored and obfuscated beginning with the very terms, with the deliberately confusing mis-designation of neo-liberal policy - immigration and non-native imposition in particular - as “The Left.” By contrast, designating the proper representation of native European national interests as The White Left is to distinguish it from the liberal and Jewish affectations imposed on native European nationalist interests by The Red Left.

http://www.thelocal.de/20140514/what-do-die-linke-want-for-europe

                                 
                                      Gysi in his Soviet permutation
——————————————————————————
More past wind across the German border from “The Left”:

“The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews, cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down!”

War is a harvest for the chosen – i.e., not you, or anyone else halfway normal.

Making official what has been de facto for months, Ukrainian President Poroshenko has announced suspension of public services and funds to people of the Eastern Provinces.

Kiev stopped funding for pensions, educational and medical facilities in eastern Ukraine.

For those rebel controlled areas, Poroshenko instructed the Kiev government to cease all activities of state-owned enterprises, institutions and organizations. This cuts-off pensioners, who are on their own, and applies also to the administration of schools, hospitals and ambulance services.

The war has also destroyed infrastructure and homes, leaving many desperate for shelter. With the winter coming on, this is a death sentence to many. Those in jeopardy are afraid to speak-out, terrorized with the threat of death or imprisonment. In the meantime, there is a shocking uncaring among the populace of the unaffected areas. From Poroshenko on down, the attitude is one that this is the choice of the peoples in the Eastern provinces and they are getting what they deserve.

In fact, Poroshenko may well be building a case against himself, a portfolio replete with a litany of war crimes. The people of Ukraine, consuming the “Western” propaganda fed them, have all too often become as callous as the YKW who abide of common folk blamed and killed for crimes of The Soviet era and more accurately, for internecine animus stirred-up by Israel’s proxies.

It would perhaps not be so surprising for youth to succumb to crass material appeals of the West, nor for that matter, for the callous uncaring of those “Jew-wise” National-Socialists Banderas to be animated by ultra nationalism as a result of Western bribes, propaganda and instigation to war, but even older folks have turned their backs on people they could be looking in the mirror at – turned their backs, ensconced in the expert propaganda, psychological conditioning and bribes from the YKW and their bottomless funds.

Yes, so cynical and ruthless they are in their aims that they would even use “Nazis” to fuel war and fund their harvest. Note who Victoria Nuland met with and promoted in her nation building efforts. These “Nazis” of course, report right back, hands out for another bribe to join The EU. A lot of good that is for European nationalists, yes?

While the people of the East, enculturated to not trust the West (with good reason) resist Westernization, they are caught in a no man’s land. They are not in Russia and not under its jurisdiction. Putin’s Russia, having a commitment to being a “non-racist” proposition nation is not perfectly innocent of course, from a WN standpoint, but quite reasonably does not want Nato and The EU (or literal Nazis) at its border any more than The US would want Soviet missiles in Cuba or Red Army troops in Mexico.

Putin has been harangued for not helping these people who have been cut-off from the Ukrainian state. However, it is not a part of Russia, it is a part of Ukraine, and Russian lorries carrying food and aid are not always being allowed to get through to the people in need. Where are Victoria Nuland’s 5 billion going?

Fuck the EU indeed.

..and movements. Proscriptions of European organization and defense, promulgated under a guise of moral acceptability, that have European peoples arguing against their own interests and organization thereof.

                                                       
                                                  promulgating the perversion of terms…

Conservatism

Racist/Racism

Leftism

Equality

Diversity

Multiculturalism

Post Modernity

Social Constructionism

Hermeneutics

Marginals

Tolerance

Civil Rights

Hippies/Feminists

Sexual conservatism as pathological

Christianity

READ MORE...

Thread Wars 3:

MR taking it to the threads, stepping-it-up and further cultivating strategies, noting successes, charting obstructions to bringing nativist nationalism to public acceptance.

READ MORE...

Described by the film company Dartmouth Films as “this unique observational documentary”, Laura Fairrie’s “True Lives - The Battle for Barking”, which aired on More 4 on Tuesday night, has been written about at some length elsewhere.  The Telegraph, The Independent and, particularly noxiously, The Guardian (twice) have all devoted space to it, along with several nationalist blogs.  In fact, as is usual with the BNP, the amount of political and journalistic attention the programme has received most probably contrasts with the viewing potential for a late-evening broadcast on a digital TV station.

I watched the programme yesterday on-line here.  Already aware that it was fairer and more politically neutral than other mainstream media coverage of and investigation into the party, I was nevertheless surprised by the tenderness of some of the portrayals - not of Nick Griffin and his (then) coterie but of the local party members and the ordinary people of the borough (the English ones).  Its title aside, which bowdlerised the BNP’s own much-derided genuflection to the Churchillian, the film treated of the sincerity and sentiment of these people with something very like compassion turning all the time to a wry recognition that their campaign was, like the people they love and try to aid, doomed.  Even the music score plucked these strings, and the whole, I felt, captured the perhaps inevitable unfulfillment and failure that is the lot of folk nationalism in the hard, shiny, Blue State Digital world of modern electoral politics.

But that’s all I want to say myself.  True to the spirit of the observational film-maker, I thought I would confine the rest of this post to the voices of some of those BNP supporters and sympathisers who have commented on the various “Battle For Barking” threads.  But I will begin with the words of Laura Fairrie herself:

READ MORE...

by sirrealpolitik

This story in the Daily Mail - reputedly the paper of choice for middle-brow British bigots - is a fascinating object lesson in what we are up against at MR.  It is evident both in the visuals and in the not-so-subtle propagandistic spin of the “journalist” David Gardner (who appears to be a creature of the zeitgeist rather then a Jew - Ed).

A picture of the apparent racial mixing in San Antonio is given the caption:

The Texan city blurs the [racial] lines better than most.

Ah, that word “better”.  It turns this article into an instrument of social engineering, intended to assign a positive value to this supposed goal of “blurring.”

Gardner continues in this vein:

Another Texan city, Houston, also shows a richer diversity of races spreading out from the centre.

I wonder if Gardner has ever been to Texas.  If he had, he would know that once you get into the rural areas blacks become a rarity.

In Gardner’s mind, the racial separation in cities like Detroit and New York is evidence of white racism (of course!), where Euro-bigots form “rich white enclaves”.

Yet it must be noted that the author’s “blame whitey” mentality gets struck down in the comments section by the reader who has by far the most public support, with a 1545 rating at last count. “karl the Yank”, from upstate New York, says:

Rather than a symptom of “racial divisions” or social problems I think it is very telling that most humans prefer to live with their own. People who share their same history and culture. I dont see anything wrong with that. It is just human nature. Why some people see this fact as an awful thing that needs to be “corrected” is beyond me?

And there’s the question: why do educated whites interpret behaviour understood as normal in other races as “xenophobia” and “racism” in whites?

First, please listen to a ten-minute sound-file on Simon Darby’s blog.  His post is titled Sunday Times Donates £5,000 to Solidarity Trade Union.

This details the BNP’s judicious handling of a dodgy £5,000 donation back in January.  It was made out to Griffin personally and was claimed to come from an elderly female party member.  Griffin recognised it immediately as a set-up and donated the money to Solidarity Trade Union. 

Now look at what the fearless and upstanding investigative journalists Fiona Hamilton and Sam Coates of The Times have made of it:

Mystery of the BNP’s general election war chest

The British National Party is facing an inquiry into its funding after its leader, Nick Griffin, paid a £5,000 political donation into his personal bank account without declaring it.

The party’s finances came under scrutiny yesterday after it declared donations with the Electoral Commission of £21,132 for the first quarter of this year. No donations were declared between March and December last year. It has pledged to spend £500,000 campaigning for next week’s European and local elections alone.

Under Electoral Commission rules, donations in excess of £5,000 to political parties and in excess of £1,000 given to party members to be used for political activity must be declared ...

Fiona Hamilton has anti-BNP form.  Coates appears to focus quite a bit on party funding in general.  Yellow journalists both.  The story involves setting up a fictitious BNP member and a chequing account.  It must have taken least five to six months in the planning, which gives you some idea how much premeditation has gone into the wider media onslaught.

Meanwhile, the beat goes on.  David Cameron has come out all guns blazing at the BNP - no doubt just a consequence of his present embarrassments.

UPDATE

From the BNP website, an article revealing:-

Angered at being exposed in this way, The Times and The Daily Mail have retaliated by making the absurd claim that the Electoral Commission is now investigating the matter after their Communist Party sources claimed to have reported it.

The BNP [Lee Barnes, actually - Ed] has been in direct contact with the Electoral Commission this morning. That body has confirmed that there is no investigation into the BNP, and that they have no intention of launching any such investigation.

The role of the Electoral Commission is to investigate donations made to political parties. They have no interest in ‘investigating’ donations given to private individuals which are then passed on to non-political parties.

George Pitcher is Religion Editor of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph. He was ordained priest in the Church of England in 2006 and is Curate at St Bride’s, Fleet Street, in London – the “journalists’ church”.

So says the blurb on the Rev George Pitcher’s Telegraph blog.  It does not mention that George is the most open-minded journalist in the history of the known universe.  Just read the comments to his piece published today and titled Why Auschwitz needs to become history.

If every mainstream journalist was as accomodating and open to ideas as this chap we would have knocked the Establishment over years ago.  I wonder when his bosses are going to correct this, of course, completely unacceptable situation.