Lech Poznan fans protest immigration of refugees by boycotting Europa League opener
         
           
          Poznan (Poland) stadium: UEFA announced 1Euro of each ticket goes to #refugees #nrx THIS is white identity on display

While most of the clubs across Europe are showing their support towards the refugees, Polish football club Lech Poznan is completely against the cause, The Guardian reported. The supporters carried out a planned boycott during the Europa League match against Portuguese club Belenenses, as they were against UEFA’s decision to donate a euro from every ticket sold to the refugee cause.

The Inea Stadium which had an average attendance of 20,000 people last season, saw a small crowd of 3,000 supporters on the day. The match ended in a tie, with both teams finishing goalless.

The fans were clearly against the idea of refugees moving to Poland and put up a banner which read “Stop Islamization” over one of the stadium entrances. This though was not the first time that the team’s supporters committed such an act. On a previous occasion, the team hung a banner that read “This is obvious and simple for us, we do not want refugees in Poland”.

While Poznan was the only club to participate in a boycott, cases of the anti-refugee movement have also been reported in Olympique Lyonnais from Ligue 1 and Maccabi Tel Aviv. The Bundesliga and the Premier League teams though do not share this sentiment and have shown their support towards refugees on several occasions.

Lech Poznan display their hostility towards refugees in Poland (Image source: 101GreatGoals)

To draw the lines of friends and enemies properly this time and then to find the martial spirit which knows no compassion for an enemy that will not comply with the requirements of our existence and well being.

To lose compassion, to lose anti-racism, which is anti - viz. against - social classification (and group discrimination accordingly), to find the will to “other” even their fairly benign individuals, classifying them as being of the mortal group pattern and finding the will to smash them, as need be, on our behalf, anything to drive them away from any imposition upon us - but most of all, losing compassion for those who would bring them upon us.

On African population explosion,
Steve Sailer, September 19, 2015

African Population Explosion: The Graph That Explains the 2015 Migrant Crisis:

Population-1950-2015

The demographers of the United Nation’s Population Division have quietly released their World Population Prospects: 2015 Revision report.

Above is a graph I put together from their new data that explains much about the “Migrant Crisis” of 2015.

As you can see, way back in 1950, the population of the Middle East was only 18% as great as the population of Europe, while Sub-Saharan Africa was only 33% as large. Even in 2000, the Middle East had only 49% of the population of Europe, while Africa had almost caught up to Europe with 88% of its population.

But from 2000 to 2015, the Middle East added 124 million people, making it now 65% as populous as Europe.

In this century alone, Sub-Saharan Africa has added 320 million people, making it 130% as populated as Europe.

Some of this information about the past is new. For example, the U.N.’s estimate of the population of the continent of Africa back in 2010 has grown by 13 million people, or over 1% between the 2012 Revision and the 2015 Revision. When it comes to population, the past just isn’t what it used to be.

But what about the future?

As a general pattern, the U.N. has found, the completeness of the counts tends to be worse in the fastest growing countries. Thus, the harder the U.N. has looked at Africa in this decade, the more people and more new babies it keeps uncovering.

It turns out that while the total fertility rate in Africa is falling, it’s falling quite a bit more slowly than the U.N. had expected as recently as back in the previous decade. Sub-Saharan Africa simply isn’t behaving like the rest of the world.

The upward adjustment in Africa’s population projections in the 2012 Revision of World Population Prospects came as a shock. But the 2015 Revision forecasts Africa’s population in 2100, about one lifetime from now, to be another 5% higher than the U.N. projected just back in 2012.

Here’s my graph of the 2015 numbers:

Population-1950-2100

Wow.

The U.N. now projects that, despite lower fertility in some Muslim countries such as Iran, the population of the Middle East will surpass that of Europe in 2045 and reach 937 million by 2100.

As for Sub-Saharan Africa, the U.N. foresees the population growing to 3,935,000,000 (3.9 billion and change) by 2100. (The total population of Africa and the Middle East will be 4,872,000,000.)

That’s probably not going to happen due to some combination of (A) intelligent self-restraint, (B) mass migration, and (C) Malthusian Nightmares (war, famine, disease, etc. etc.) keeping the population of Sub-Saharan Africa in 2100 from being more than six times as great as Europe, which would be an 18-fold increase in 150 years.

Keep in mind that there’s not a one to one relationship between population growth and emigration. In general, people try to assess whether the future at home looks brighter than the present. But people in Africa and the Middle East can see their countries’ futures will be more crowded and constrained.

Personally, I hope the reason that this graph doesn’t prove accurate is largely (A) intelligent self-restraint. But at present, white people don’t seem to be making much of an effort to facilitate and encourage reasonable family planning in Africa. Because that would be, you know, racist.

Which is the worst thing in the world, much worse than the U.N.’s population forecast.

READ MORE...

All of the Croats have been arrested, and the migrant trains have been stopped.

Independent.ie, ‘Hungary seizes migrant train from Croatia, disarms 40 Croatian police and arrests train driver’, 18 Sep 2015:

Hungarian authorities seized a train bringing migrants into the country from Croatia, disarmed 40 police on board and detained the driver after over 4,000 migrants arrived across their border, the head of the Hungarian disaster unit said.

Gyorgy Bakondi told reporters the Croatian train that shipped the refugees and migrants to Magyarboly came without any prior notice, like the rest of the new arrivals coming on other trains and on buses.

Hungary registered and disarmed the 40 police who escorted the train, he said according to a video posted on M1 state television’s website.

[...]

The row between the two countries and their respective handling of the migration crisis has deepened as Hungary’s foreign minister on Friday accused Croatia of pushing migrants to break the law by “illegally” breaching Hungarian borders.

“Rather than respecting the laws in place in the EU, they (Croatia), are encouraging the masses to break the law, because illegally crossing a border is breaking the law,” said Peter Szijjarto, speaking in Belgrade following talks with his Serbian counterpart. [...]

It seems to be a matter of incentives here. The Croats are trying to avoid having to deal with the problem by sending the migrants deeper into the European Union, because they don’t want to have to keep and process the migrants that have already entered Croatia. Hungary’s way of dealing with the migrants is to block entry with a ‘fast solution fence’ along all the areas that are not separated from other countries by a river.

If Hungary continues to maintain its position, they may create a domino effect of incentives whereby all other countries will have to erect fences that face outward, and move migrants outward after processing and declining their refugee applications, rather than just passing the buck ever deeper into the continent.

Providing that this continues, Hungary may be seen as having done a lot to save Europe from disaster.

                               
                                                                            It can be done.

Croatia puts migrants on buses to Hungary:

Croatia started transporting migrants to Hungary by bus on Friday (18 September) after the country’s prime minister said Croatia cannot cope with the influx and will redirect people towards Hungary and Slovenia instead.

Croatian police put refugees on to more than 10 buses in Beli Manastir, a small town 6 km from the Hungarian border, and some 30 km from the Serbian border.

Word has it that Juncker is socially conservative and therefore does not relish the migrant crisis; but he is a businessman who is looking after business interests for himself, business constituents and to maintain his position as an EU representative of those interests.
                           
That is why he felt constrained to put across a plan to try to preserve the Schengen zone by diffusing responsibility among its members and (in his theory) that might dilute the impact of the migrants. 

An additional aspect to the psychology of his position is that he is from Luxembourg, one of the smallest European nations. One can imagine business persons from small countries finding the delay and tedium of having to go through border controls as they move in and out of a Luxembourg every 15 minutes an insufferable handicap.

Nevertheless, from a WN/ethnonationalist perspective, particularly until such time as the borders of the entire zone are secure from non-European imposition and those who are already here are drastically reduced in number by means of repatriation, the Schengen zone will have to give way to tighter national border controls.

From an ethnonationalist point of view, in any event, there has to be more national accountability to their own and to European people as a whole.

Is this the end of Schengen?

         

Sep 16 2015: In last week’s State of the Union speech, European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker referred to the Schengen Area – a border-free travel zone made up of 26 European countries – as “a unique symbol of European integration”. After Germany’s recent announcement that it would be “temporarily reintroducing border controls”, some say that unique symbol is in jeopardy.

A look back at the past 30 years since the agreement was signed can help clarify what exactly is at risk.

What is Schengen?

The Schengen Area is made up of 26 European countries that have removed border controls at their shared crossings. The agreement was signed in 1985 by five members of the EU, and came into force 10 years later. Following the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, the Schengen agreement became part of European law. That meant all new EU members had to sign up to it, although Britain and Ireland had already been given the right to opt out. As the map below shows, four non-EU countries – Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein – are also members of the area.

Why are people talking about the end of Schengen?

We are experiencing a global refugee crisis. Around the world, 60 million people have been forced to flee war, violence and human rights abuse – levels not seen since World War II. Hundreds and thousands of those people have attempted the often perilous journey to Europe in search of a better, safer life.

Some of them haven’t made it – while the image of Aylan Kurdi’s lifeless body on a beach in Turkey shocked the world, many more have died trying to get to Europe. According to figures from the International Organization for Migration, 2015 could end up being the deadliest on record.

Of those who do make it over, the majority have been heading to Germany. The country expects to take in 1 million asylum seekers by the end of the year, more than all other EU countries collectively received in 2014. It is in response to these huge numbers that Germany decided to re-impose its internal border controls. The country’s interior minister said the move aimed to “limit the current inflows to Germany and to return to orderly procedures when people enter the country”.

Some have been quick to emphasize the temporary nature of this decision. But with countries such as Austria and the Netherlands now following suit, others think Schengen’s days are numbered.

Has anything like this happened before?

The option for a country to temporarily reinstate border controls was actually built into the original agreement, as the European Commission pointed out last weekend: “The temporary reintroduction of border controls between member states is an exceptional possibility explicitly foreseen in and regulated by the Schengen Borders Code.”

In the past, countries have chosen to exercise that right. For example, in 2006 Germany reinstated border controls when it hosted the FIFA World Cup. France did the same in 2005, following the terrorist attacks in London. In what was perhaps a precursor of the troubles to come, during the post-Arab Spring mass migration of 2011, politicians in France and Italy called for deep reforms to the agreement.

So what’s different this time?

Even in Schengen’s early days, critics pointed to one big flaw: freedom of movement within the Schengen area only works if the common external borders are fortified. With many frontline countries such as Greece already experiencing crises of their own, the task of strengthening those external borders has become even tougher.

The stakes were raised this summer after a heavily armed terrorist suspect was apprehended on board a train travelling between three Schengen countries. The ease with which he had moved around the area prompted some to refer to Europe’s open-border policy as a terrorist’s paradise.

Perhaps more importantly, people’s attitudes within the area are starting to change. This recent crisis is just one in a long line of turbulent events for Europe these past months and years. Whether they are right to do so, some blame the union for these developments. While Schengen and the free movement of people might be at the core of the European project, for some that no longer seems worth fighting for. A poll back in July showed that the majority of western Europeans would like to see Schengen scrapped, and last year former French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for it to be “immediately suspended”.

But with so many people now displaced by conflict and violence, others argue that the European project – which has brought peace to a continent previously locked in war – has never been more important.

As plans to share out asylum seekers more equitably across the European Union make little progress, many will be closely watching the developments for hints of what it means for Schengen.

When the most prominent publicist and right hand man of the serving government of Hungary uses language such as this, it isn’t time to be discouraged about White Nationalist efforts. It is time to increase initiatives: our voices are being heard. Mainstream politicians have begun speaking in explicit terms of our racial interest:

“The refugee crisis in Hungary and Europe is a racial war intended to annihilate White people.”

           
              Zsolt Bayer talking on September 13th

Fidesz founder says racial war being waged against whites in Europe:

Zsolt Bayer, a co-founder of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party, a long-time friend of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the right’s most prominent publicist, sees the current refugee crisis in Hungary and Europe as a racial war intended to annihilate white people. Mr. Bayer shared these thoughts at a rally in Budapest this past Sunday, attended by an estimated 1,500 people, and organized to protest a magazine cover in Hungary, which portrayed Mr. Orbán with a mustache that resembled that of Adolf Hitler. In this paper, I have suggested before that Fidesz and the far right Jobbik party are indistinguishable. Perhaps I was wrong, because based on Mr. Bayer’s speech, Fidesz is now more extreme than the ominous opposition party.

Mr. Bayer’s premise, that dark forces are conspiring against white people throughout the world, is framed in a quote from controversial author, historian and race theorist Noel Ignatiev. Mr. Ignatiev has long seen race as a social construct, something that Mr. Bayer fails to mention to his audience, who he left thinking that the American theorist wants to annihilate white people. Mr. Ignatiev has spoken about wanting to “abolish the privileges of the white race” and added: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin.” Mr. Ignatiev, a long-time Marxist, is essentially suggesting that a type of constructed white identity carries with it automatic privilege, rendering equality between all races impossible. The theorist could have clearly phrased this in a less inflammatory matter, and his theories are Manichean and possibly somewhat outdated in the twenty-first century. But regardless: his overarching message of ingrained, implicit racism is worth considering.

The Fidesz co-founder portrays this Marxist academic as an influential thinker among western policymakers, a mover and a shaker, a man who walks the corridors of power with confidence and ease. This is simply not true, but Mr. Bayer’s audience is left thinking that a madman who wants to commit genocide against white people is a powerful voice in Washington.

“There are all kinds of weapons: traditional, chemical, atomic. And now we see that there are also racial weapons. This is the weapon that they, the invisible hands, employ against Europe and against the white race,” declared Mr. Bayer in Budapest.

The term “invisible hands,” within this context, is coded language, easily deciphered by everyone in that audience and on the Hungarian right as a reference to liberals, left-wingers and Jews. (Mr. Ignatiev is, himself, of Jewish origins.)

“Why has everyone, from everywhere and all at once, decided to start heading towards Europe? Why? Let us declare loudly and level-headedly: this is an artificial, manufactured mass migration. And its goal is the final and irreversible transformation of Europe’s ethnic and religious composition. And for this, they have already produced the necessary ideologies. According to the Harvard professor, the white race must be made to vanish,” said Mr. Bayer. At several times in his speech, the crowd, fired up by the orator, interrupted him.

The other “ideology” that Mr. Bayer dismisses is the fact that Europe’s population is ageing and dwindling, and that immigration is most likely the only way to ensure a large enough active adult population to keep pensions and social services sustainable. Mr. Bayer believes that European corporations want to employ “Syrian masons and Bedouin goat-herders” in their factories, rather than native European youth, because they represent cheap labour.

“Our leaders in Brussels want to sell Europe from over our heads and they want to destroy our Europe…Anyone who dares to oppose this automatically becomes a Nazi,” said Mr. Bayer, explaining to his audience why Orbán is often labeled extremist.

“But I have some bad news for these criminals, namely for the Austrian chancellor, the French foreign minister, the western journalists, who are liars to their very core and, of course, for the good-for-nothing people behind the Magyar Narancs publication: of the 500 million natives of Europe, 450 million do not want to see any more immigrants. The Hungarian prime minister represents their opinion,” declared the Fidesz publicist.

The crowd held up signs that read “Je suis Orbán,” amidst dozens of Hungarian and Szekler flags and the event’s organizers, the Forum for Civic Cooperation (Civil Összefogás Fórum – CÖF), a pseudo-NGO, fully in line with Fidesz party interests, declared that further protests were coming against the “liberal fascists” and those who criticize the prime minister.

In a development that should not surprise anyone at all, virtually none of the ‘moderate rebels’ that American liberals had hoped to use against ISIL are still active in the field:

BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: ‘Only four or five’ US-trained Syrian rebels are still fighting’, 17 Sep 2015:

A US scheme to train Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State (IS) militants has been branded a total failure after a US general admitted only four or five were still fighting.

Congress approved $500m (£323m) to train and equip around 5,000 rebels as a key plank of US strategy against IS.

But the first 54 graduates were routed by an al-Qaeda affiliate, Gen Lloyd Austin told lawmakers.

Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte said the number remaining was a “joke”.

“We have to acknowledge this is a total failure. I wish it weren’t so, but that’s the fact,” said another Republican Senator, Jeff Sessions.

‘Small number’

Gen Austin, who heads the US military’s Central Command (Centcom) was appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Asked how many US trained rebels were fighting he said: “It’s a small number… we’re talking four or five.”

He said there was clearly no way of meeting the goal of 5,000 recruits a year, but urged patience.

“It is taking a bit longer to get things done, but it must be this way if we are to achieve lasting and positive effects.”

Appearing alongside him, Christine Wormuth, Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, said around 100 more rebels were currently in training.

She said the reason for the low numbers was the vetting process used, with the US only recruiting rebels wanting to fight IS rather than Syrian government forces.

It is not clear what happened to all of the initial group attacked in northern Syria - some were killed, others captured, while the rest scattered.

Gen Austin also promised “appropriate actions” if an investigation found than senior defence officials doctored intelligence to downplay IS and al-Qaeda strength in Syria.

The allegations that intelligence analysts’ reports were being manipulated first emerged in the Daily Beast earlier this month.

How long will it take people to accept that if something cannot be done by proxy, that you may have to actually go in there and do it yourself?

While E.U. skepticism is more than valid in terms of its extant structure, operation, backing and representatives, can there be any doubt that European nations are better off coordinating their efforts if not cooperating with regard to their mutual interests and concerns?

That unity of effort is what we are calling a union, a European Union of sorts. Let this crisis shake trust in authority to its core and provide an opportunity for ethnonationalists. For we are operating of virtual, parallel nations (4th generation warfare). With that, we can seize this crisis to begin to determine the means and extent of our cooperation in a sovereign reconstruction of our national rule structures and their coordination - but again, who can argue that we have common interest in turning would-be non-European migrants away and repatriating a large percentage of the ones that are here?

Not only are we better off aligned against migrants as opposed to each other, but also aligned against those who are responsible for the pejorative rule structures as they presently exist and the implementation of those rules which brings invading migrants here.

There can be little dispute that European nations are better off with less conflict with one another and more aligned against non-European antagonists and European traitors.

The obvious fact of our allied interests accepted, attention then turns to a balance to be struck somewhere between cooperation and coordination.

With these ideas and the idea of sharing the reconstruction of our rules in our service we have an amazing opportunity to learn from the mistakes of World War II and do things correctly this time.  That is, unlike World War II, where we were fighting one another European Nations, we have an opportunity to do what should have been done then: respect one another ethno-nationalist sovereignties and coordinate the blockage, deportation and repatriation of non-Europeans and disproportionate non-native nationals.

This will require something like Frontex. The question is, how much cooperation or coordination do Europeans want to negotiate?

EU Observer, ‘Frontex in dire need of border guards’, 15 Sep 2015:

As Europe’s refugee crisis intensifies, the EU border agency, Frontex, is suffering from a drastic shortage of border guards on the Greek islands, on the land border between Greece and Turkey, between Bulgaria and Turkey, and along the Hungarian border with Serbia, according to an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ).

Five months after EU leaders increased Frontex’s budget by €26.8 million to cope with the refugee crisis, EU member states have not fully responded to repeated requests by Frontex for border guards and equipment to help tackle the problems on Europe’s external borders.

The revelation comes as Frontex’s executive director, Fabrice Leggeri, prepares to be grilled on Tuesday (15 September) by the European Parliament’s civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee.

Committee chairman, Claude Moraes, to whom Frontex reports, described member states’ failure to provide the agency with the necessary resources at this “critical moment” as “scandalous”.

“Frontex is a crucial tool in the response to this crisis and people will therefore be astonished that despite funds being available it’s not adequately resourced so that it can carry out the first-tier response,” Moraes said.

Plea for help

Last April, EU heads of state signed off on the €26.8 million emergency grant at a high-level summit in what was portrayed as Europe uniting in its response to mass tragedies in the Mediterranean.

The money was supposed to allow Frontex to lease border guards and equipment from member states who would then be compensated by Frontex with the extra funds.

Last month, EU migration, home affairs and citizenship commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos wrote to all 28 interior ministers urging them to help.

But even that demand from the commissioner for migration to senior interior ministers across Europe has not delivered enough border guards and equipment.

As chaos continues to grip key migration routes, Frontex officials have admitted that they “badly need border guards on the Greek islands, border guards and technical equipment on the land border between Greece and Turkey, Bulgaria and Turkey and, crucially, along the Hungarian border with Serbia.”

Offers of key personnel and equipment from member states “are still very scarce”, said a Frontex spokeswoman.

This concluding part of Guillaume Faye’s article [The Migratory Invasion, Part 1: A Terrifying Diagnosis] hits upon the matter critically:

“this [crisis] could lead to fundamentally questioning the architecture and functioning of the European Union”

The matter is, if cooperation and coordination among European nations is necessary - and as we have said, of course it is, more or less - how are the blue prints of that (more or less) unionization to be redrawn and its manifest “architecture” to “function” and be managed?

Theoretically, “more” is characterized by more “cooperation” as distinguished from “less” which is characterized more like “coordination”, but it is still a necessary unionized effort to some extent.

More, coordination has more to do with non-interference with fellow ethnonationalists and acting without centralized directive, but rather autonomously and at the discretion of the parallel nation.

It will do no good to say that no level of cooperation or coordination is necessary as European nations will be impacted by what happens in other European nations.