Majorityrights Central > Category: Demographics

Left to right: Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Theresa May.

Summary: A roundtable between Guessedworker, DanielS, and Kumiko Oumae, about Brexit and the leadership contest which is emerging in the aftermath of the decision.

Thoughts about the situation in Turkey are also explored.

Recorded on 30 Jun 2016.

Here’s an interesting development:

BBC News, ‘Austria presidential poll result overturned’, 01 Jul 2016 (emphasis added):

Austria’s highest court has annulled the result of the presidential election narrowly lost by the candidate of the far-right Freedom Party.

The party had challenged the result, saying that postal votes had been illegally and improperly handled.

The Freedom Party candidate, Norbert Hofer, lost the election to the former leader of the Greens, Alexander Van der Bellen, by just 30,863 votes or less than one percentage point.

The election will now be re-run.

Announcing the decision, Gerhard Holzinger, head of the Constitutional Court, said: “The challenge brought by Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache against the 22 May election… has been upheld.”

He added: “The decision I am announcing today has no winner and no loser, it has only one aim: to strengthen trust in the rule of law and democracy.”

Austria’s politics have been thrown into confusion. One of the most controversial and polarising presidential elections in recent history will have to be re-run.

This is a moral victory for the far-right, anti-immigrant and Eurosceptic Freedom Party, which launched the legal challenge last month after alleging “terrifying” irregularities.

The Freedom Party is hoping that the decision by the court will help its candidate Norbert Hofer win in the new election this autumn.

Hanging over the vote is the shadow of “Brexit” - the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

Will Mr Hofer choose to make Austria’s future membership of the EU a campaign issue?

Some Austrians think the vote by the United Kingdom to leave the EU could boost populist and nationalist sentiment in Austria. Others believe the political turbulence in Britain may make people more cautious about Eurosceptic parties.

Mr Hofer said on Friday he was pleased that the court had taken “a difficult decision”, adding: “I have great trust in the rule of law.”

Mr Van der Bellen said he was “very confident” he would emerge the winner.

“Austria needs to be well represented in Europe and the world. If we can do it once, we can do it again,” he told reporters.

Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said the court ruling showed that the country’s democracy was strong and he called for “a short campaign, a campaign without emotions”.

‘Rules broken’

In two weeks of hearings, lawyers for the Freedom Party argued that postal ballots were illegally handled in 94 out of 117 districts.

It alleged that thousands of votes were opened earlier than permitted under election rules and some were counted by people unauthorised to do so.

The party also claimed to have evidence that some under-16s and foreigners had been allowed to vote.

In its ruling, the court said election rules had been broken in a way that could have influenced the result.

But it said there was no proof the count had been manipulated.

If elected, Mr Hofer would become the first far-right head of state of an EU country.

His party has based its election campaigns around concern over immigration and falling living standards for the less well-off.

After Britain voted to leave the EU, Mr Hofer said he favoured holding a similar referendum in Austria if the bloc failed to stop centralisation and carry out reforms “within a year”.

Last Sunday, he told the Oesterreich newspaper (in German): “If [the EU] evolves in the wrong direction, then in my opinion the time has come to ask the Austrians if they still want to be part of it.”

His opponent, Mr Van der Bellen, is strongly pro-EU and has spoken of his dream for a border-free “United States of Europe”.

The two men went forward to a run-off when, for the first time since World War Two, both the main centrist parties were knocked out in the first round of voting.

Following the court’s order to re-run the vote, President Heinz Fischer will be replaced on a temporary basis by three parliamentary officials, including Mr Hofer.

The new election is expected to be held in September or October.

What powers does the Austrian president have?

It is a mostly ceremonial post. But the president does have the power to dissolve the National Council - the more powerful lower house of parliament. That triggers a general election.

The president can only do that once for a particular reason - he cannot use the same grounds to dissolve it again.

It is the chancellor’s job to appoint government ministers. And the chancellor has the power to dismiss the government. But ministers have to be formally sworn in by the president.

Welcome, welcome to the theatre of ‘I told you so’!

In my previous post on Brexit, I said:

Majorityrights / Kumiko Oumae, ‘The coming battle over the meaning of Brexit.’, 26 Jun 2016 (emphasis added):

The European Union’s leaders really don’t want to sacrifice their mass migration agenda or their austerity agenda in order to save the union itself. They want to have their cake and eat it, and the only way they can do that is to try to convince the broad mass of the European population that the root problem is somehow actually the opposite of what it really is.

So instead, everyone will be told that somehow the reason for Brexit is because the EU itself somehow stoked ‘Islamophobic tendencies’ by implicitly approving of [those tendencies]—astonishingly—because it somehow didn’t prostrate itself to the needs and concerns of Turks as well as Arabs and North Africans quite enough for their liking, and that by not prostrating itself it somehow gave the signal that it was okay to not prostrate oneself, which somehow led to Brexit.

Sounds impossible? Oh, it’s possible. [...]

Today:

Sky News, ‘Turkey And EU Begin Brussels Accession Talks’, 30 Jun 2016 (emphasis added):

A senior Turkish politician has said right-wing extremism is threatening “European civilisation” and that following Brexit, the EU needs a “fresh start with a fresh vision”, which must include Turkey.

Omer Celik, Turkey’s chief negotiator in the process of the country’s proposed accession to the EU, also condemned the “anti-Turkish sentiments” expressed during the recent referendum campaign.

He was speaking at a media conference in Brussels following a meeting between EU officials and a delegation from Turkey that also included the country’s foreign, finance and justice ministers.

The substance of the meeting was the opening of the latest phase of convergence reforms, known as ‘chapters’, that a state must fulfil before accession to the EU.

So far, of the 35 chapters that must be completed and ratified, 16 have been opened but only one - on science research - has been closed.

During the media conference, the Turkish delegation exchanged polite, but pointed barbs with EU officials.

Dutch foreign minister Bert Koenders and EU commissioner Johannes Hahn both called on Turkey to address concerns over “short-comings” on human rights, the rule of law, freedom of expression and the independence of the judiciary, indicating these were major sticking points to progress.

Mr Celik responded by saying it was Europe - not just Turkey - that needed to change.

“Without sorting out its problems it cannot give hope to its members or its neighbours… it needs a fresh start with a fresh vision. Such a start will have to include Turkey,” he said.

“There are extreme right wing movements, there is anti-semitism and racism. These are the main threats against European civilisation,” Mr Celik added.

Turkey joining the EU became a major topic of debate in the UK referendum, with the Leave campaign regularly voicing their alarm about the prospect of visa-free travel for “79 million” Turkish citizens - a point dismissed by David Cameron and Remain campaigners, who insisted that Turkey was “decades” away from joining.

Mr Celik condemned the tone of the debate in the UK, saying anti-Turkish rhetoric masked deeper problems across Europe.

“The extreme right are expressing themselves with anti-Turkish sentiment but these are all products of the same mentality,” he said.

“The mainstream politics should stand up to this, not be weakened in the face of the extremist movements.

“When mainstream parties use these arguments against Turkey, they are making a mistake, they have to take responsibility, they have to stop this tendency.”

No. We won’t stop saying unkind things about Turkey. Not ever.

In the environment of Brexit as it presently exists, there are very few things which can be said as a certainty. Any real analysis of events really is going to begin after markets open on Monday morning, once political actors find themselves at work trying to figure out how to guide the UK’s ship of state forward.

One thing which can already be seen however, is the budding counter-narrative which those who are in favour of continuing the EU’s mass migration trend inside of the remaining 27 member states of Europe, are going to make up.

But before I present the counter-narrative which they are going to make up, I should first present what the actual reality is.

The presently existing and frankly obvious reality is that Brexit was largely a consequence of:

• The pro-migration decisions made by the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, along with specific leaders such as Angela Merkel and Stefan Löfven.


• The stances of the US State Department and the UK FCO during the 2011 - 2013 period which created the perfect storm of conflict which opened up routes for a whole wave of rapid migration from the Middle East and North Africa to enter the European Union.


• The policies adopted by the ECB which exacerbated the 2008 crisis, prolonging it in the South of Europe and left much of South Eastern Europe in a state of underdevelopment, making the European Union one of the worst economic performers in the world in the post-2008 environment.


• David Cameron’s attempt to renegotiate the terms of UK membership of the European Union so as to placate the concerns of the British public and dis-incentivise a ‘Leave’ result, were handled incompetently by the Commission and the Council, because they seemed to think that Cameron was trying to troll them, when in fact what Cameron was trying to do was help the Commission to help itself. Statements from Jean-Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel hotly asserting that the agreement made with David Cameron was ‘non-binding’ in front of the whole world, were a classic case of the Commission’s incompetence as a political player, and Merkel’s actual stupidity.

The pro-European faction of the British bourgeoisie could not contain the populist response to these developments, and so incapable were they of containing it that one rival faction of the British bourgeoisie began to believe that charting a course outside of the EU was better for their own interests as well as the country as a whole. That rival faction correctly surmised that harnessing the populist response could take them to that place. This is what led to the creation of a ‘Leave campaign’, led by a collection of prominent Tories implicitly in alignment with a small segment of the Labour Party (Labour Leave), and UKIP. This faction of the British bourgeoisie expertly and valiantly exploited the situation as it was unfolding, to guide the British people toward a Leave vote, which enabled that faction to claim a mandate to de-pool the UK’s sovereignty out of the EU and exit the bloc entirely.

The above observations—also known as ‘the facts of reality’—are unacceptable to the European establishment on the continent, because the implications of this mean that they would see increased calls for them to stop doing what they are presently doing or else risk the total dissolution of the European Union as the same pattern could potentially emerge in other member states.

The European Union’s leaders really don’t want to sacrifice their mass migration agenda or their austerity agenda in order to save the union itself. They want to have their cake and eat it, and the only way they can do that is to try to convince the broad mass of the European population that the root problem is somehow actually the opposite of what it really is.

So instead, everyone will be told that somehow the reason for Brexit is because the EU itself somehow stoked ‘Islamophobic tendencies’ by implicitly approving of them—astonishingly—because it somehow didn’t prostrate itself to the needs and concerns of Turks as well as Arabs and North Africans quite enough for their liking, and that by not prostrating itself it somehow gave the signal that it was okay to not prostrate oneself, which somehow led to Brexit.

Sounds impossible? Oh, it’s possible. Indeed, they would have to have some real gall to try to flip the script at this stage in the game, yet they are going to try it, and Erdogan is leading the way as the first one to attempt it this absurdity:

Daily Sabah, ‘Erdogan: EU’s reluctance to accept Turkey has Islamophobic motives’, 24 Jun 2016 (emphasis added):

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the European Union is reluctant to accept Turkey as a full member due to its Islamophobic motives.

Speaking at an iftar dinner in Istanbul on Friday, Erdogan said “The EU’s double standard policy towards Turkey has become an undeniable fact,”

Touching upon the referendum held on June 23 in the United Kingdom to decide whether or not to stay in the EU, he said that the Britons’ decision to leave the union will mark a new era for the EU.

Erdogan further added that the EU is likely to face more exits in short term if it “continues on the same path.”

U.K. voters opted to leave the EU in a historic referendum on Thursday, sparking worries across European capitals over the political future of the bloc.

Almost 52 percent of voters rejected their country’s 43-year EU membership.

Erdogan stressed that Turkey has always given its due importance to the acceleration of Turkey’s EU membership bid but the bloc has always been delaying the process.

“Double standards are no longer hidden. They have put more obstacles on Turkey’s path. They have been keeping Turkey waiting at their door for 53 years.”

During his speech, Erdogan also criticized EU’s asylum procedures.

“The EU bloc’s bad humanitarian and immoral approach to immigrants has led to a serious debate about the trustworthiness of the European Union,” he said.

The EU and Turkey signed a refugee deal on March 18, which aimed to discourage irregular migration through the Aegean Sea by taking stricter measures against human traffickers and improving the conditions of nearly 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey.

The deal also allows for the acceleration of Turkey’s EU membership bid and visa-free travel for Turkish nationals within the Schengen area, on the condition that Ankara meets 72 requirements set by the EU.

Although Turkey fulfilled most of the criteria last month, differences between Brussels and Ankara on anti-terror legislation have forestalled the visa-liberalization deal.

Turkey began its EU accession talks in 2005. In 1963, Turkey and the European Economic Community (the EU’s former name) signed an association agreement.

Welcome to topsy-turvy land. In coming weeks I can almost guarantee that the political figures in Europe will begin partially echoing Erdogan’s sentiments, and Europeans will be told that the only way to avoid future ‘exits’ is for people like Merkel and Löfven to show even more ‘leadership by example’, so that ‘love can triumph over hatred’.

Achieving Frexit, Nexit, Czechxit, Polexit, and every other kind of exit, becomes increasingly more likely as the European leadership increasingly proves itself to be mentally retarded. Now that Brexit has actually succeeded, I’m perfectly happy to nihilistically contribute to propagating the narrative that ends the whole EU and gives space for something stronger and better to rise in its wake.

The strong shall live and the weak shall die. This applies to people, but also to institutions. The first word in the term ‘European Union’ is ‘European’, and if the European Union can no longer coherently act as the economic arm of Europe’s defence in complement to NATO, then the European Union shouldn’t exist. It’s obvious. If the EU leadership couldn’t handle a simple problem like the migration crisis and its political fallout, and if it couldn’t even see off challenges from diverse opportunists like Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Gisela Stuart, Nigel Farage, Priti Patel, Liam Fox, Andrea Leadsom, Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Ashcroft, then frankly the EU does not deserve to exist as a structure.

The flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the symbol of the strongest political power in Europe, and those who want strength gather around it.

        Brexit Wins! Leave 17,176,006 to 15,952,444 Remain.

Vote Leave on 23 June.

Summary: This interview was hosted by Henrik Palmgren at Red Ice Radio, and the roundtable discussion was about Brexit and its significance for Europe and the world.

The first hour is freely available for all to download, the second hour is available with a subscription to Red Ice Radio.

The participants on the roundtable were:

• Henrik Palmgren: Henrik Palmgren was born in Götaland, Sweden, the land of the Goths. He is the founder and Editor-and-Chief of Red Ice. Henrik is best known as the host of Red Ice Radio and TV, producing most of its content. He is primarily concerned with European heritage, culture and counteracting global internationalists.


• Guessedworker (GW): An English nationalist in favour of international nationalism. Having lived in 1950s era Britain, he has since seen his nation undermined by neo-liberalism and Jewish-inspired leftism. He created Majorityrights.com in 2004 as a forum to find solutions for the myriad of problems facing not only the British people, but all European peoples as well.


• Kumiko Oumae: The Eurasian affairs contributor for Majorityrights.com. She believes that in order for Europe to control its own destiny – and for it to be a good trade and global development partner for Asian countries – there must be a serious dialogue on Europe’s historical role in the world and the justification of that role, as well as how the European states can resolve the crisis of legitimacy that their governments are presently facing. Kumiko also works in the security and defence sector in the United Kingdom.


• Daniel Sienkiewicz: An ex-pat American of European descent, living in Europe. He has been troubled by the implications of “anti-racism” and has been testing various means to advocate for European peoples for as long as he can remember. Daniel rejects many common approaches, including all characteristically Cartesian attempts, such as scientism, as ineffective means to solve the problems that currently threaten ethnic Europeans.

We were honoured to have the opportunity to link up with Red Ice Radio in this way, they have our thanks.

Red Ice Radio, ‘Brexit: Time for the UK to Leave the EU’, 17 Jun 2016:

We begin by discussing Brexit and its significance in the ongoing struggle between nationalism and internationalism. Kumiko argues that, in many ways, the current economic paradigm in the West isn’t quite internationalism proper, but rather the United States being allowed to dominate due to passivity on behalf of the European Union. Despite a few minor disagreements, all three guests adamantly support withdrawal from the European Union. We then discuss the original vision of the European Union – that of a unified, more prosperous Europe – and how the elites therein have sabotaged that vision by allowing in millions of non-European immigrants. Later, we talk about the unfortunate lack of patriotism within certain European countries. We conclude this episode with a discussion on the manner in which the mainstream media has used the murder of Jo Cox as an excuse to those in favor of Brexit.

Links:

• Majorityrights.com - The politics and metapolitics of 24th June 2016
• Majorityrights on Twitter
• Red Ice Radio
• Red Ice Radio on Twitter

UK politics - US politics - liberalism - Obama - Judaism -  Christianity - Islam - Orlando - Cox - Rigby - immigration - EU - Bataclan - Brexit

We know what Merkel, her policies on immigration and Islam are worth. Obama’s support for “remain” is clear, and his immigration policies and stance regarding Islam are coherent with Merkel as well.

Inasmuch as EU membership reflects America’s propositional notion of nationhood, immigration, citizenship and Visa policy, to “remain” is either to allow yourselves as native British to be murdered or to be compelled to a suicide mission at the behest of ruthless elites who have no concern for your genetic inheritance.

US President Obama on the Jo Cox assassination: he condemns the act but not the religions and those who impose immigrants upon European peoples; nor the genocide it entails for the native British. On the contrary, he telephoned Cox’s husband to express condolences and released a statement praising her commitment and service…

For what Obama is worth: Did Obama call the family of Lee Rigby? In that event, did he so much as implicate Islam, the responsibility of migrants and those, including the other Abrahamic religions, which impose migration upon the UK?

Did Obama recognize the necessity for moratorium on immigration, repatriation, criminalization of Islam - an ememy political action group dedicated to sedition and insurrectionist overthrow of non-Muslim governments? Would his backers recognize our need to overcome liberal imposition of non-natives upon Europeans, whether upon us as native nationals or in diaspora? Would he care? Quite the opposite:

“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!” - Barack Obama addresses Berlin in 2008

That was to call for opening the floodgates which would genocide European peoples.

And the walls of Rotherham, the walls between adult Muslims and under aged girls in the UK?

Britain needs to Brexit, and watch out for what the YKW, their objectivist dupes and sell outs will do by means of their proxy, The US, whether with Hillary or Trump in the Presidency; they will try to have us follow the agenda for which Obama acted as just another conduit. For them we can die: through subjection to, or by fighting, the cataclysm they’ve imposed.

The Orlando massacre was just the latest incarnation of an Isis sympathizer who had a little help form his friends.  ... this will be the summer of Isis. Isis has infiltrated our country and infiltrated into much of Europe. They have done this in large part through this Refugee Resettlement program that continues, in this country unabated by a President who appears, from what I can see, to be a Muslim sympathizer… who is more concerned that American citizens might upset the sensibilities of these so called moderate Muslims… I have no idea who these people are, or where they exist. Islam is Islam and in Islam they make no room at all for anybody outside of their faith. I don’t know where these moderate Muslims are that we keep hearing about. I don’t see that any have emerged to condemn these attacks; and it looks to me from my perspective that this country is sitting on a time bomb that was set in motion by our own President Barrack Obama: he has, up until this point in his Presidency issued nearly one million green cards for people from Muslim countries to come and resettle in this country. With this Refugee Resettlement program that’s happening out of Syria right now - just since the attack in Orlando - another 49 Syrians have been placed in the Orlando area.

                                                                                                                                - Sean Bergen, Political Cesspool

UK politics - US politics - liberalism - Obama - Judaism -  Christianity - Islam - Orlando - Cox - Rigby - immigration - EU - Bataclan - Brexit

This is not a call to passivity, but rather to make sure that we are not used by the YKW and objectivist sell-outs for the fact that we are not well sorted and coordinated - for the fact that our enemy list is not complete; and for the fact that our friend and in-group list is not sufficiently organized and coordinated.

Brexit and in-gathering of European peoples is a necessary first step to proper sorting. Clearly we have to do it for ourselves. We cannot rely on the US, a propositional nation, to facilitate our sorting requirements - even if Trump is the lesser of evils and supports Brexit, is he really capable of deviating sufficiently from Jewish interests? Let him help if he will, but don’t trust him to do it for us - certainly not when it comes to drawing the lines of us - them - friends and enemies.

               
Our enemies such as Schulz and Merkel obligate us to accept immigration and servitude to foreigners and to them unto our death. EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.

Our enemies, such as former French President, Sarkozy, in 2008, and Merkel in 2016, obligate the native Europeans to breed themselves out of existence with non-Whites.

While the minions of EU welcome its people’s death…

In Israel, our enemies are quite intent to see that immigration is controlled at their border.:

READ MORE...

          The Sermon on The Mount Ensconces The Golden Rule of Altruism

Majorityrights prefers to deal with verifiable reality as opposed to speculative theory and faith based systems of rules as we look after the interests of our people. We are looking after genetic groupings and genetic interests as key criteria, even if these are not the only important verifiable criteria to keep track of our peoplehood and that of others. Rationale and rule structures are another criteria for that purpose.

While existence is of course equiprimordial to genetic interests, to secure it for any span and legacy requires rationale and varying degrees of sophistication to negotiate complex rule structures of interaction. “Rules” (1) are the term of common currency that we will use for the logics of meaning and action that people use to negotiate interaction and these complex, protracted exchanges beyond episode, close personal relationships in yield to maturity of their full social system; and its relation to other social systems.

For those of us who are coming from this kind of perspective, where we perceive ourselves as rationally and empirically grounded, it is difficult to understand someone like pastor David Blackburn, his love of Jesus that would have him not only forgive, but want to share his love of Jesus with the men who raped and murdered his wife and unborn child; but to my knowledge, he is at least not hoping to get them released from prison.

It is even more difficult to understand European peoples allowing, even welcoming foreign incursions into The U.K., Sweden, France and Germany - it is difficult to fathom the mindset of a Merkel, who would destroy our European peoples in service to non-Europeans. But there is one rule, convoluted rule, that they have in common and makes their position intelligible to us despite their apparent irrationality.

The Golden Rule is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, which is a central text in the Christian faith. It states: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. There are similar instructions in many other cultures.

Despite receiving high respect and wide popularity, the rule raises critical questions. What is the recommendation more exactly, and is it good advice?

This post will prepare a discussion of the work of Jan Tullberg - viz., the difference between the golden rule of benevolence as opposed to the silver rule of reciprocity - as it applies to assist in the reconstruction of a necessary consensus of moral rules among European peoples and for coordinating our relations to others.
____________

There is a consensus among advocates of European peoples that in essence we seek to secure the existence of our people. There is much dispute over how that is to be done…

READ MORE...