Majorityrights Central > Category: Immigration

The polity is shaped towards our race-replacement by its own deep history of ideas but also, of course, by the history of events which are inextricably linked to those ideas.  The sum of them all constitutes an enormous bulwark against change, pressing us, as people interested in change, to the inevitable conclusion that any serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power must mean a revolution on no mean scale.  A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces.  Many, and quite possibly all of them, would have to be swept away, too.

I’ve made some rather slipshod efforts in the past to draw up a chart supplying some relational context to these forces.  This time, as part of the working up of a new article for PA’s site, I’ve tried to get everything in, including the elements aiming at control of the future of all humanity.  Doubtless, it’s always possible to keep expanding the range of entities, and I might have missed something important.  Anyway, if there is improvement to be made, do please say where.

Today the Telegraph reported on an academic paper commending a new lexicography of race and ethnicity in order to combat very, very naughty racist thoughts by white men:

Dr Ewan Birney, deputy director of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory at the Wellcome Genome Campus in Cambridgeshire, is also a co-author of the article.

He explains that beyond dropping Caucasian, other terms should also be avoided, including ethnicity labels - such as “Native American”, “Hispanic” and “White Irish” - and cultural terms such as “European”.

Dr Birney and his colleagues advocate for scientists to replace these commonly used words and phrases with more complex language, based around a two-step genetic analysis.

As a result, he says this more technical language would see the label of “European” replaced with “The European-associated PCA cluster, which aims to minimise variation in non-genetic factors and genetic factors”.

Dr Birney is actually Prof Birney, and as well as holding other positions in the gene biz he is a co-director of the European Bioinfomatics Institute, the “home for big data in biology”.  Oddly, this rather large and, no doubt, exceedingly well-funded organisation does know what race is when it needs to:

As Europe’s premier centre for bioinformatics, our commitment to diversity and inclusion is critical to our success in delivering excellence in science. As a global organisation with employees from 80+ nationalities we encourage and empower our employees to be their authentic selves at work, embracing the unique combination of culture, race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, physical or mental ability and work-life situations.

Along with himself, Prof Birney credits five colleagues with the writing of the paper, which is titled “The language of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in human genetic research”.  They set out their case thus:

In the case of human genetics (by which we mean the genetic study of human biology and disease) this often involves terminology inherited from anthropology and population genetics, both of which have evolved significantly in recent years. Both fields now firmly reject longstanding ideas of race as a meaningful biological category and labels which were founded in racist perspectives of the 20th and preceding centuries. For example, it is now clear that while humans vary genetically, there is no natural or inherent categorization of human genetic diversity at any global scale. The genetic structures we find are tangled and complex, reflecting our history of worldwide migration, population divergence and admixture, both ancient and recent. While not without consequence for human traits, genetic ancestry and diversity are poorly reflected in the range of anatomical features used in older studies that sought to categorize individuals and groups, features such as pigmentation and cranial or post-cranial morphology. Hence, the racial and ethnographic labels used in such historical studies, and more fundamentally their categorizing approach, have little relevance for understanding human population genetics. Furthermore, the consequences of misunderstanding and misusing these categories, and the terms associated with them, are far from neutral: science, society and politics have always been inherently connected.

As geneticists, we believe that there is an increasing need to address one of the more uncomfortable aspects of this connection, where in the words of American Society of Human Genetics “the invocation of genetics to promote racist ideologies is one of many factors causing racism to persist” [1]. As the source of evidence which some ideologues misrepresent to fit their views of biology and society, the human genetics community has an obligation to revisit and, where possible, change its language to be both more accurate and less confusing or harmful in the public arena. In science, we always aim for precision in our language, but it is not feasible to completely eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding, wilful or otherwise.

Prof Birney also has a blog, which he has not used much, it must be said.  But his last but one post back in 2019 was titled “Race, genetics, and pseudo-science: an explainer”, and it explains that:

Racial categories, as most people understand them today, have some of their roots in the development of scientific thinking during only the last few centuries. As Europeans explored and colonised the world, thinkers, philosophers and scientists from those countries attempted to apply taxonomic structures to the people that they encountered, and though these attempts were many and varied, they typically reflected sharp geographic boundaries, and obvious physical characteristics, such as pigmentation and basic morphology – that is to say, what people look like. Research in the 20th century found that the crude categorisations used colloquially (black, white, East Asian etc.) were not reflected in actual patterns of genetic variation, meaning that differences and similarities in DNA between people did not perfectly match the traditional racial terms. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that race is therefore a socially constructed system, where we effectively agree on these terms, rather than their existing as essential or objective biological categories.

Some people claim that the exquisitely detailed picture of human variation that we can now obtain by sequencing whole genomes contradicts this. Recent studies, they argue, actually show that the old notions of races as biological categories were basically correct in the first place. As evidence for this they often point to the images produced by analyses in studies that seem to show natural clustering of humans into broadly continental groups based on their DNA. But these claims misinterpret and misrepresent the methods and results of this type of research. Populations do show both genetic and physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for the concept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.

Denying race is a form of professional lying, which is invariably undertaken by otherwise educated people “because racism”.  Prof Birney could as easily prove the taxonomic validity of race as disprove it - a fact my good friend John Standing thought he might demonstrate to the anti-racist Prof by way of some emailed questions, as follows:

READ MORE...

It’s “THE Left”, they want to take away your Christianity, they’re not dealing with reality!

David Horowitz and Paul Gottfried occupy two axial points of Jewish motivation to promote a marketing campaign against “the left” and characterology thereof, while altercasting manipulable right wing reactionary positions for Whites given intersectionality with the (((progressive stack of PC victim groups))) against their Jewish interests, their need to get ahead of the reaction to NeoConservatism’s Operation Clean Break / Wars for Israel and reaction to the 2008 financial meltdown/ bail-out.

While I have called attention to David Horowitz as a leading Jewish figure in advancing the marketing campaign - in Jewish interests, obviously - against “THE Left” and indeed, he has contributed to exposing the Cultural Marxist/PC Anti-White Left, I have focused more on Paul Gottfried in terms of posing “The Left” in opposition to White identity and nationalism by definition. Nevertheless, both conveniently ignore the possibility (and necessity) of a White Left Ethnonationalism, instead altercasting any White identitarianism which might respond as some kind of Right -

Gottfried continues to orchestrate a program against “THE Left”, as best he can, presenting Christianity as spunky “rebellion” that “the left” wants to do away with, while Spencer was enlisted to advance a youthful, secular element to align with Paleoconservatism.

Alt-Right in Gottfried’s case, with flunkey Richard Spencer figure-heading the addition of new tents, more youthful, flagrantly rebellious and anti-social, secular, along with Paleoconservative and Jewish right wing (Alt Lite) tents - moving to “Dissident Right” after Charlottesville and “Hail Trump”, Spencer then falling to the wayside in favor of a more streamlined but still edgy/ironic Paleoconservatism (Christianity being what it cannot deviate from) and Third Positionism (includes right wing elements, obviously) - But I have not talked as much about David Horowitz’ part in the marketing campaign, positioning White identity against “The Left” and altercasting White Nationalism as some kind of Right (come Third Positionism, or neither left nor right populism, susceptible to infiltration and ineffective if not self destructive right wing reaction).

Related:

Though J.F. Gariepy claims to be thinking independently in his terminological deployment, the discourse parameters he follows are within the altercast box prescribed by Jewish interests and serving them; as ever, a caveat thus in regard to Gariepy’s use of the term “The Left” and its “characterizations;” while this usage and characterology is fairly true when looked upon as a Marxist Internationalist or Cultural Marxist Left, assailing White national, group and personal boundaries, absent the delimiting working hypotheses of the White Ethnonational Left, viz., unionization to structure accountability and gauge correctivity for Whites, Gariepy’s advice is more free floating (and, he admits, nihilistic) than it should be - providing feedback looking toward the more objective facts irrespective of our subjective and relative interests, but lacking the radical orientating context without the centering calibration of White Left Ethnonationalism’s relative, systemic interests.

JF Gariepy discusses recent Youtube bans, including Red Elephants: He adds (6:31)“But then, lets not fool ourselves into thinking that the current order is a liberal one. We don’t live in a liberal society. In a liberal society, you can’t lose your channel like Vincent James just lost it today. That is bullshit. These people are not liberals.”

And in regard to his assessment given the recent Youtube bans, viz., of Vincent James, actually, Gariepy is off the mark. The internationalist Marxist, anti-White Cultural Marxist agenda is about liberalizing White National borders and boundaries to the extreme completion - to where we can conserve nothing (not even a Youtube channel with the aim of conserving any vestige of White human ecology).

The discussion below, from NPR Fresh Air, does well to place David Horowitz in the scheme of things. However, it only provides a semblance of explanation of his motivation for terminological and conceptual misdirection of White interests in order to serve Jewish interests as they’ve been intersected by their former client advocacy positions….

All text except for images and captions are from NPR, Fresh Air:
.....

NPR, Fresh Air, 24 Aug 2020

Guerrero is an investigative reporter who formerly was with KPBS, the radio and TV station in San Diego. She previously covered Mexico and Central America for The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires. She’s the author of a previous book called “Crux: A Cross-Border Memoir” about growing up with a Mexican father and Puerto Rican mother.

It’s impossible to understand the Trump era, with its unparalleled polarization, without tracing Stephen Miller‘s journey to the White House. That’s what my guest, Jean Guerrero, writes in her new book, “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, And The White Nationalist Agenda.

[...]

GROSS: So David Horowitz, who we’ve been talking about, who became a mentor, a far-right mentor to Stephen Miller - you know, Horowitz started off as as a leftist. He was one of the editors of the leftist magazine Ramparts. He, I think, was, you know, an ally of the Black Panthers. Like, what do you know about why and how he changed so radically? He moved from, like, one pole to the other.

GUERRERO: Yeah. I mean, David Horowitz had recommended his friend Betsy (Van Patter) to work on the accounting for the Black Panthers. She’s a white woman. And she ended up being murdered. And the murder was never solved, but David Horowitz blamed the Black Panthers Party and became convinced that they had murdered her. And after that, you saw David Horowitz go through this transformation where he became convinced that the movement that he had been a part of, the left, had waged a unfair war on whiteness - is what he called it. He felt that whiteness was actually something that needed to be preserved.

And, I mean, he tries not to write about it outright as whiteness being preserved. But he talks about how the only important racism in society is racism against white people and that racism against Black and brown people is a figment of your imagination. And it really goes back to the murder of his friend Betty, who he blamed on the Black Panthers.

And it really started to lean into these, you know, misleading statistics that are put out by publications like American Renaissance, this white supremacist publication that paints brown and Black people as innately more violent than white people. And David Horowitz is the one who introduced Stephen Miller to websites like American Renaissance. He describes the founder of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor, to me, as a very smart man, who he claims has a perverse ethnic view because, again, David Horowitz, you know, tries to distance himself from the white nationalist movement because he knows how important it is to launder these ideas through the language of heritage and national security if you want them to appeal to the mainstream.

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let’s get back to my interview with Jean Guerrero, author of the new book “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, And The White Nationalist Agenda.” She is a former investigative reporter for KPBS, the public TV and radio station in San Diego. She’s now freelance and continues to report for public media. She previously covered Mexico and Central America for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires.

So we’ve been talking about how David Horowitz mentored Stephen Miller. And Horowitz helped Stephen Miller launch his career. He first got him a job with Michele Bachmann when she was elected as a congressperson, and she was very conservative. So what job did he get working with Michele Bachmann?

Christian Zionist Michelle Bachmann

GUERRERO: He was hired as a press secretary for Bachmann, and that was his first job. And that’s kind of where Stephen Miller starts to learn about, you know, how to write these very hyperbolic press releases. And he starts to, you know, bombard reporters late into the night with his press releases and links and FYIs.

GROSS: So David Horowitz first gets Stephen Miller a job with Congressperson Michele Bachmann. And then from there, Horowitz gets Miller a job with Jeff Sessions when Jeff Sessions was a senator from Alabama who, like Stephen Miller, was very anti-immigration. So what was the relationship like between Sessions and Miller when Miller was working for him?

Jeff Sessions by Gage Skidmore

GUERRERO: So Miller - you know, he really helped to turn Jeff Sessions into sort of a very combative personality. He - I mean, Sessions was already a leading nativist on Capitol Hill when Stephen Miller joined. But Stephen Miller started to model Jeff Sessions, his remarks, after the far-right, combative media personalities that Stephen Miller had been familiar with his entire life - so really pulling, you know, talk radio talking points onto Capitol Hill and having Jeff Sessions, you know, talk about how too much immigration is going to, quote, “decimate” this country and how anyone who supports immigration reform is part of a globalist elite who wants to destroy the country through limitless importation of cheap labor in the form of mass migration. So these ideas of demonization Stephen Miller really incorporated into Jeff Sessions’ rhetoric.

GROSS: So he becomes Jeff Sessions’ press secretary, and then Sessions and Miller end up in the Trump administration. And Steve Bannon helped get Stephen Miller into the Trump administration, and Bannon was another one of Stephen Miller’s mentors. What was Bannon’s role in Stephen Miller’s life before Bannon was pushed out of the Trump administration?

Stephen Miller and Steve, “ethnonationalism, it’s losers and we’ve got to crush it more”, Bannon

GUERRERO: So Bannon, you know, gives Stephen Miller a platform on Breitbart while Stephen Miller was working for Jeff Sessions. Basically, Stephen Miller was given free reign over a lot of the writers at Breitbart to just kind of shape their stories and provide them with ideas that they were expected to turn into stories. And during this time is when Stephen Miller was feeding, you know, articles from white nationalist and white supremacist websites to Breitbart and having them do stories about them, you know, painting immigrants as an existential threat.

So Bannon - you know, he gives him a platform on Breitbart and helps connect him with the people on the Trump campaign, where Stephen Miller was initially providing free labor for the Trump campaign, you know, sending over talking points and memos and then eventually gets himself hired in 2016 as the senior policy advisor and top speechwriter for President Trump.

[...]

GROSS: The book “The Camp Of The Saints.”

GUERRERO: “The Camp Of The Saints,” yeah. It demonizes people of color. But it also demonizes their allies. It demonizes anti-racists as agitators and anarchists and as mobs, which you then now see Trump using that exact same language to talk about anti-racist protesters ever since, you know, the police killing of George Floyd. So Stephen Miller is really drawing - whether he’s doing so consciously or not, I mean, Stephen Miller read this book. He promoted this book. And a lot of the language in this book you are now seeing Trump using.

[...]

GROSS: Well, among the many riddles surrounding Stephen Miller is - you know, he’s Jewish. His grandparents were immigrants. And he espouses some views that are espoused by white supremacists. White supremacist hate Jews.

GUERRERO: Mmm hmm.

GROSS: They would like Jews to, like, leave the country or at least live in a separate space on their own. How does he reconcile that? I’m sure you don’t know the answer to that. But don’t you wonder?

GUERRERO: I do. You know, I - one of the stories that I found the most interesting in my research for the book is the story of Stephen Miller’s grandmother Ruth, who on his - his grandmother on his mother’s side who spent her retirement compiling the family history, you know, how they were refugees who fled the nationalist agitators and, you know, these pogroms against the Jews, these massacres against the Jews and came here to the United States. And she recorded the family history. She said she was recording it for her grandchildren, like Stephen Miller, so that they would never forget the value of people who come to this country with nothing but the clothes on their back and speaking no English, just as Stephen Miller’s ancestors came to this country.

GROSS: How have people in Miller’s extended family reacted to his extreme views?

GUERRERO: You know, I interviewed a number of his relatives. And most people in his family, with the exception of his parents and his siblings, who declined to talk to me - they’re very ashamed to be associated with Stephen Miller and the legacy that he’s created around the family name because of the fact that, you know, they know where they - where the family comes from and the fact that they - you know, they initially came here without any knowledge of the English language and without any money in their pockets and started out as, you know, peddling fruit on the streets and eventually made their way up and made something of themselves and contributed in a very strong way to this country in the way that, you know, many immigrants do.

And so a lot of them told me that they see him as someone who needs to be punished for crimes against humanity. You know, one of his aunts was telling me that she truly believes that he’s unleashed what she calls a Pandora’s box of hatred in this country that is going to be very difficult to contain after they leave office, if they do.

..................................

Related at Majorityrights:

If you are able to articulate public relations manipulation so well, how did you wind up altercast?

Paleocon Bannon arrested, indicted in private sector crowd-funding fraud, build-the-wall campaign.

These Are White Nationalists? What Is Behind TRS And The Alt-Right’s Gushing Effusion For Trump?

(((Mike Peinovich, the “Serbian”))) who hates Albanians and thinks they should have been genocided.

Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream

Paleoconservatism as “Cultural Controlled Opposition” to Neo-Conservatism and its Clean Break Memo.

In a recent podcast, Dangerfield ran clips from an English village in the 1970’s celebrating The Queen’s Jubilee.

Dangerfield remarks among his derision of “Post Modernity” read (((post modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity, and “The Leftists”, read international, red leftists as opposed to White ethnonational left, that these “Leftists” will denounce the celebration of “The Queen’s Jubilee as right-wing reactionary nostalgia.”

This is not really quibbling on my part. Rather, it provides a good example of why it is important to understand Post Modernity correctly, viz. White Post Modernity as opposed to its (((red caped))) misrepresentation along with other language currency counterfeiting the depth grammar of left and right.

Dangerfield says, “these leftists want to say that these English villagers celebrating the queen’s jubilee” is an expression of right wing reaction.”

However, Post Modernity proper, viz. White Post Modernity/left ethnonationalism, would say, on the contrary, that it can be fine and good for these English villagers to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Unlike the rule structure of Modernity, a practice (and a people) does not have to be different and new in order to be good; and should not be put at risk to uncontrolled experimentation.

If it is a healthy tradition, one can feel free to participate and reconstruct the practice/people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity (as opposed to modernity’s paradoxic mandate to the individual: “be different so that you can fit it”); one invokes a willing suspension of disbelief in the hermeneutic (liberated from Modernity’s mere facticity) and one does so understanding when it is healthy for one’s people (while one is free to Not participate and can give way to Modernization when a tradition is not healthy for one’s people).

You begin to see why it is important to have a clear understanding of Post Modernity, viz., White Post Modernity.

For one clear example, for capacity that it provides for Optimal Competence, as per Aristotle’s description of performance requirements: minimal, satisfactory, optimal.

A minimally competent person could not participate in the Queens Jubilee appropriately, because they would not understand it well enough - thus, not understanding how to reconstruct the practice normally, or adjudge where the practice might be right (despite modernist derision) or where it might be going wrong (despite its having been tradition).

A merely satisfactorily competent person can ONLY participate in a rather verbatim reconstruction of the practice. But given the disorder of Modernity, lacking the stability that once underpinned the practice with assurance (e.g., The Queen has our interests at heart and would never decry those against immigration as “racist”, nor lord accountability to the universalizing Jesus over us, as opposed to accountability to our native people, nor have a grandson married to a Mulatto), there is no such thing as the kind of stable criteria for one to reconstruct; one must have more understanding of the context.

Hence, given the disorder of Modernity, especially (((weaponized))), as it were, there is no stable traditional order to practice satisfactory competence, one is either minimally competent or optimally competent.

* Aristotle’s discussion of minimal, satisfactory and optimal competence uses the example of fairness in exchange and knowing the difference.

Satisfactory competence can only make an equal exchange.

Minimal competence doesn’t understand an equal exchange, might make an equal exchange by accident, or give less than the appropriate value or more than the appropriate value, not really understanding it.

Whereas optimal competence knows the equal value of an exchange but can exchange less without being niggardly in truth or can give more without being ingratiating in truth.

It is not only necessary for English and all European peoples to understand Post Modernity properly, but it is also quite possible, not too hard at all for the vast majority of our people to understand its performance requirements; minimal/optimal. Hence, we must not be deterred by Jewish red-caping of terms and concepts.

Related at Majorityrights:

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

White Post Modernity

..the need to coordinate with (as opposed to antagonize) the Genus European and other Species of Native European Nations and diaspora remains…

...it seems that we may have had some positive influence on Brutus and co.

...but his claim that “anti-Christian” is synonymous with being anti English Nationalist is not really true.

...he’s a bit too accepting of warring and supremacism as a natural fact.

...too simplistic in his view on gender relations.

...maybe should add a few more words to his catch-all go-to - “kick the foreigners out”. Maybe

While there are these disagreements with him and his colleagues to be had, in regard to episode -

Banter Nationalism 93 -  I want to deal with a nuance of agreement and disagreement.

As they are English Nationalists, I absolutely agree with them in critiquing “Patriotic” Alternative and other British Nationalists where they might place their cause simply under the rubric of “White” and where they might rally by the 14Words (let alone by German American WN’s Hitler redemptionism 88).

Brutus’ concern to make and emphatically maintain the distinction between English ethnonationalism and White Nationalism is very important, well taken.

However, while Brutus and co. can be forgiven as being in an initial stage, tad over-corrective break-out into appropriate concentration on English ethnonationaism, they do over-correct a bit.

You see, “White” merely represents the genus, European.

The term is not only necessary to avoid confusions as to who is being advocated when speaking of European diaspora, but it is also the case that we are under attack as a race - i.e., All White people, meaning the American sense of the term, “White” - all people of European descent, and therefore we are all in the same boat with a common cause in having to defend ourselves for our race - wherever we are.

Now, White as the genus, European, is not mutually exclusive to the species - e.g. English - defending their national kinds and borders as well.

I agree absolutely with Brutus and co. in emphasizing this distinction of concern, which I will call a distinction between genus and species. Where I disagree with them is in making the concerns mutually exclusive, antagonistic, even.

And regarding the 14 Words, while David Lane made a mistake in playing a role in killing the Jewish radio shock jock and David Lane paid the price for it, the 14 Words are, nevertheless, a beautifully composed, inspiring rallying cry for many.

It does remain true, however, that the 14 Words are not unproblematic when our enemies and doltish true believers (in “88”) try to re-attach them to the “88”. That again, was a mistake by David Lane, i.e., to make that association in the first place. However, the conscientious, such as TT and his admirers, have always been clear to say the 14 Words without the 88. The 14 words remain valid as such.

Even so, it is true that “White” and The 14 Words speak of the genus and do not distinguish the very important species difference - such as the English.

Brutus’ concern to make and emphatically maintain that distinction is importantly well taken.

I hope that they’ll steer clear of some supremacist way of marking the difference - from what I hear of “37 words” I’m not sure if it’s in their personality to manage that…

Obviously we can defend ourselves better if we are not fighting each other - 88 - and have alliance with other European nations/peoples.

The coordination of genus (race) and species (national kinds) of European peoples is not too difficult an intellectual task for Brutus and others to manage.

Perhaps something like English/14

German/14

French/14 and so on…

...to mark the species divisions of the genus.

I will not insist on people using the 14 words, but they work quite well for some, especially diaspora when separated from the 88 - 14/88

Who The English Are: correcting the definition and the warrant by Laura Towler

The same institution that publishes this ominous graph, the same institution which defines the various means of genocide, including displacement of habitat and interbreeding, now brings ratification of immigration as a “human right”.

Voice of Europe, “Nine EU members steer clear of the UN Global Compact for Migration”, 19 Dec 2019:

The UN General Assembly formally ratified the UN deal on migration on Wednesday 19 December. Of the EU members, three voted against, five abstained and one didn’t vote. The United States and several other countries also did not support it.

It was ratified with the support of 152 countries in favour, five nations – the United States, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Israel voted against it. There was a total of twelve who abstained, Austria, Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia and Romania and Slovakia did not vote.

Citizens of many of the countries responded with petitions demanding their leaders NOT sign this disastrous treaty. This would appear to be a treaty made by the elected leaders against the wishes of those by whom they were elected.

There were more than 50 delegations who gave explanations of their decisions.

Hungary’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Péter Szijjártó, asserted that the General Assembly was making a serious mistake ratifying “this unbalanced, biased and pro-migration document” stating that migration is “a dangerous phenomenon”. Mr. Szijjártó stressed that Hungary reserves the sovereign right to decide for themselves on migration and security measures.

To say the Migration Pact has been a divisive topic is possibly an understatement.

Belgium voted in favour of the treaty despite the Prime Minister Charles Michel being forced to resign last Tuesday as he lost his majority when coalition partner N-VA walked out over their being against the Migration Pact.

Whilst in Slovakia the foreign minister Miroslav Lajčák also resigned in November due to their parliament voting against the signing of the pact. The former foreign minister had helped write the initiative as president of the United Nations General Assembly in 2017.

The United States is said to have been attempting to convince other countries to vote against it right up to the last minute.

READ MORE...

Part 1 vid is now on line,  Part 2 vid is now online,  Part 3 vid now on line,  Part 4 vid is now on line, Part 5 vid now on line, Part 6 vid now on line, Part 7 vid now on line, Part 8 vid now on line

Debunking and rejecting association with Hitler/Nazi redemptionism in service of coordinating White and other ethno-nationalisms.

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 2. Audio now online.