Majorityrights News > Category: Pervasive Ecology

Blacks aren’t natural allies of Asians and neither are Jews, with their propensity to impose Abrahamism, its liberalism, Christian submissionaries and Muslim compradors over Asians

Salon, “Donald Trump’s Justice Department is fighting affirmative action for hurting white people”, 2 August 2017:

Attorney General Sessions is furthering an anti-civil rights agenda by investigating affirmative action.

I’m going to begin with an unusual order in approaching this article and surrounding discussion - viz., I will begin by looking at some comments on the matter because they throw light on how the YKW are misleading and manipulating people with a concept of “the left” - not letting it be properly understood as discriminatory social unionization and coalitions thereof, but rather having it oxymoronically accepted as liberalism for all but those unionizations circumscribed and actively represented inasmuch as they are good for YKW interests - themselves stealthily behind the scenes of the unionizations, markedly of the black interests that they have represented - viz., especially as it serves to rupture the effective patterns of their perceived enemies: would-be unionized White and Asian power.

Until recently, around 2008 with the subprime mortgage crisis; and the re-branding of (((Frank Meyer’s paleoconservatism))) as the “Alt-Right”, the YKW had not been so ardent nor effective in getting the public to argue that THE Left was the great problem of our times.

But looking at the essence of “the left” as the YKW have permitted it to be spoken of in the public domain, what we’ve had is Jewish led coalitions, internationally, of Jewish interests and crony capitalist interests; and domestically, in The U.S., primarily Jewish led coalitions of Africans, sundry Mulattoes, where convenient, gays, lesbians and feminists where they might perceive a common axe to grind against White men ...at the same time these Jewish led coalitions have not been organized for sympathy or fairness to Asians interests either.

After this point, 2008, when the YKW and complicit right-wing sell outs had presided over the boom bust cycle to where they stood firmly atop, they no longer had any use for advocating left coalitions of unions against the power - because the YKW had crossed the intersection, they had become the predominant organized power. Suddenly, “the left” became the pervasive enemy. ...and in the background, only one social unionization was tolerated by them - though not called “the left” - it was, of course, the union of Jews; and it became more brazenly right wing and supremacist with regard to other peoples, seeking only to cooperate with their right wing sell outs against those who might collectively organize as leftist coalitions against their elitism, supremacism and imperialism.

Thus, Gavin Chan has been maneuvered by Jewish journalese, a disingenuous framing of discourse, into talking in terms of “THE left” being antagonistic to his interests, without recognizing that this is neither a White Left, nor an Asian Left, but Jewish organized black and other PC left that has been used to attack those who most threaten the YKW - viz. Whites and Asians - as they threaten, especially in coalition, the only social unionization that the YKW want to remain effective - their own.

Gavin Chan · Dallas, Texas
Affirmative action is in fact the biggest middle finger to Asians. But the left leaves this detail out in most affirmative action discussions because Asians don’t fit into the leftist racial narrative.

Affirmative action in place to pay historical reparations, sure, but why at the expense of Asians? It’s absolute bs.

It’s time to end this super racist policy.

Gavin, they’ve given you the middle finger indeed with unions of blacks et. al, represented against you. But, where Elizabeth says..

Elizabeth Rodriguez · Ledyard, Connecticut
Sorry, but I don’t think Trump and Sessions are doing this to fight for Asian rights.

...that is true, they are not. They are doing this as a part of disingenuous quid pro-quo between Jews and complicit White right/alt-right wingers. I.e., they are not doing this for a White Left nor an Asian Left, but for a system controlled by (((the invisible hand))) in cooperation with whomever will take their deals, take their side and share their enemies where they might have the nerve to organize against their supramacism and imperialism.

The proper response is to recognize that a repeal of the Consent Decrees of the 1964 Civil Right Act would help alleviate some of the pressure of active enforcement of reverse discrimination, but it does not go far enough, it is not the White and Asian unionization and necessary coalition thereof - which would constitute, in the case of America, ethno-nationalisms in diaspora.

When you criticize “the racism” of affirmative action you are, in effect, criticizing group genetic unionization, the capacity for accountability thereof and thus to discriminate necessarily in group interests - that is not necessarily the same as being unfair and impervious - and leaves us only the fall-out of a civic nation, its muddles and deleterious demographic mixing - which will be horrifically unjust and destructive to systems- a destruction imposed by cultural Marxism these last 70 years, which operates irrespective of objectivist rules such as civil rights, by whatever stealthy social organization that remains effective behind the scenes, largely YKW.

Let’s focus more on the Salon article(s) now:

Some background: The Consent Decrees are effectively a scheme devised for U.S. Courts to stipulate and oversee enforcement of various concrete measures that must be taken over time to implement reverse discrimination, for all practical purposes, against White people (it eventually worked against Asians as well).

At first blush it appears to be simply good that this reverse discrimination of affirmative action might be overturned - and it really is good to an extent: at least it would repeal oversight of strict and punitive enforcement of (((Red Leftism))) and its defacto imposition of Mulatto supremacism over Whites (and Asians, Mestizos and Amerindians). It would curb the imposed liberalization of White (and Asian) boundaries in force since court decisions and consent decrees of the 50’s and 60’s; and make way for a return to a more generally liberal direction of civil individual rights, on the basis of civic nationalism - that, however, is always disingenuous. Who believes that the system is “objectively” backed?. What is the demographic make-up of this civic nation, where is it headed and which people have the invisible hand that is pulling the socially orchestrating strings that are not acknowledged?

Now that the demographic situation is muddled among the masses and unionized resistance appears near futile as it has been conflated for years with civic liberalism, Jewish interests are entrenched on top with the help of right wing sell outs they’ve bought off. They are now consistent in opposing “the left” - viz., unionized groups of people which might otherwise hold them to account. What they offer instead is civic nationalism and the mechanism of civil rights with no account to systemic backing other than the invisible hand that they, the YKW, and to some extent complicit right wing sell outs, control.

The initial financial boosters of the Trump administration, the people who made Trump’s presidency possible, are Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah. They fall into the complicit with Jews category, at best, they work things out with Jews. Witness their having put Judeo-Christian Steve Bannon (who believes “the dark frorces of the far east are the greatest threat to Western civilization) in charge of the Trump campaign as a condition of their backing. Nevertheless, Robert has long been an opponent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; and Sessions has obviously been tasked to set about deconstructing the 1964 Civil Rights Act; he was installed along with Bannon into the Trump administration apparently in large part with that aim.

Rebekah and her father Robert Mercer

NPR, 22 March 2017: “Jane Mayer - Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right.”

Jane Mayer writes in the New Yorker about Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah Mercer, who have poured millions of dollars into Breitbart News, and who pushed to have Bannon run Trump’s campaign. Robert and daughter Rebekah’s dark money is behind Bannon, Sessions,.. they were behind Flynn as well, would have been for Cruz, Bolton, almost anything but the Clintons.

Robert Mercer’s Opinions on 1964 Civil Rights Act:

According to a March 2017 New Yorker article by investigative journalist Jane Mayer, David Magerman, a former Renaissance employee, said that Mercer called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark federal statute arising from the civil rights movement of the 1960s, a “major mistake.” According to Magerman, Mercer said that African Americans were economically better off before the civil rights movement, that white racists no longer existed in the United States and that the only racists remaining were African American. Mercer vigorously denies being a white supremacist.

It remains true that White people, including ‘lower class White people” NEVER needed such black unions having their interests imposed upon them, as they were imposed by Jewish legalists, right wing sell outs and liberal stooges.

Thus, a repeal of the Consent Decrees could relieve Whites some - but only after untold damage has already been done to human biological systems and the demographic situation is hideously muddled and swamped - leaving the only one apparent way out in systemic support - through dealing with the YKW: an option that right wing sell outs and the Alternative Right have already exercised.

While they may have some problems with blacks that they may not want to own up to, but would rather look upon as the unfairness of affirmative action according to pure objectivist criteria and civic nationalism, none of these people behind and in the Trump administration have any great affection for Asians either. None of these people are anti-Semitic. The circumstance has all the hallmarks of a continued program of collaboration of elite and Zionist Jewry and right wing sell-out Whites: i.e., now that these folks are on top of the seven power niches, who needs left coalitions, unions of people discriminating in their interests? Especially not against Jewish supremaicism and elitist right wing interests.

The YKW, you see, are the only systemic union allowed in the end, by the cause of Red Leftism. Ever since around 2008 “the left” has been popularized as the great villain by the YKW in power - largely by means of the popularization of the (((paleoconservative underpinned))) Alternative Right.

But, in a word, the liberalism that they offer - even if they would repeal the Consent Decrees (which they will probably not succeed in implementing to any great effect for White interests free of Jewish instigation of pan mixia) - does not go nearly far enough: Systemic White interests need to be unionized such as to afford discriminatory accountability in the interests of our social capital - that is what is called an ethno-nation - and it must exclude the YKW from any pretense that they are White as well. Jews being considered “White” and a part of “Western Civilization” is obviously a key to the Session’s deal that they are floating to repeal the Consent Decrees. Jews cannot be trusted as part of our interest group for their manichean cunning and inevitable destruction to our people, any more than blacks can be a part of our people for their genetic distance and inevitably destructive biopower where it is allowed cohabitation and mixing.

The undoing of the Consent Decrees would be the theoretical ending of a Jewish led implementation of imposed black unionization and extortion against us all.

What we mean by unionization here is what we mean by ethno-nation on the broad scale and genetic interest groups on the subsidiary level - in our exclusionary interests.

The problem arises then with he fact that you still have to live in the world with other people as cooperatively as possible. Drawing upon friend enemy distinctions, most sane people would say Jews and blacks should be first to be most perfectly excluded; as people coordinated with at best, but not cooperated with in expectation of reciprocal good will.

Our best hope is in cooperating with coalitions of Asians, Amerindians and Mestizos against blacks and YKW.

Asian - Mestizo - White interaction is nevertheless, problematic and nobody wants to be naive - but if there is some way to coordinate our unions as a coalition against Jewish and other right wing supremaicsm, and Muslims and against black biopower, then we probably have the best possible coalition.

Of course the trick is how to manage these coalitions with Asians, Amerindians and Mestizos, without us getting abused - particularly with the Alt-Right, Right and Jews ostensibly representing us - The Asians, Amerindians and Mestizos might simply react by trying to swamp us in population if we let them, glibly citing historical grievances that we especially would have had nothing to do with, even historically; or they could do worse, taking guerilla tactics against us as if we are immune to cooperation, perhaps sicking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wvy5jXXg-E tuck ms 13”>the likes of MS13 on us if we don’t like their taking advantage, etc.

Some people would say that we do not have to coordinate with the better elements of these people; but in a world where we are faced with Jews, Muslims and Africans, and naive and disingenuous Whites, Jewed-out by Christianity, indeed we must try to coordinate with these peoples as left natonalist allies as best we can.

The Salon Article. An ostensible victory to unburden White servitude to blacks, but at what (((price))) and to what real effect, in whose “objective” interests?

Salon, “Donald Trump’s Justice Department is fighting affirmative action for hurting white people”, 2 August 2017:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is furthering an anti-civil rights agenda by investigating affirmative action.

The bromance between President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions may have soured, but that doesn’t mean the president isn’t supporting the most reactionary aspects of Sessions’ policies.

The Justice Department’s civil rights division is going to have some of its resources allocated toward lawsuits against universities over affirmative action policies perceived as hostile to white people, according to a document reported by The New York Times. The Times also reports that the internal announcement to the civil rights division explicitly asks for lawyers who would be willing to pursue “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

This policy exists as part of a larger anti-civil rights agenda being pursued by Trump and Sessions. In May, Sessions doubled down on the drug war by instructing prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.” In June, Sessions discontinued the use of consent decrees in civil rights cases, which goes against traditional Justice Department practice as it makes civil rights rulings more difficult to enforce. Last month the Justice Department argued that Title VII protections don’t apply to the LGBT community.

Despite these social justice policies, Sessions has mainly been in the news for his deteriorating relationship with Trump. Although the two were reported to be close friends for years, and through the 2016 election, things soured between them when Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation in March. Trump has blamed Sessions for what he perceives as a showing of weakness and said that he wouldn’t have selected Sessions as attorney general if he’d known he would do that.

Salon, “Trump Administration quietly rolls back Civil Rights efforts across federal government”, 15 June 2017: Previously unannounced directives will limit the Department of Justice’s use of civil rights enforcement tools - Consent Decrees

Topics: Civil Rights, Department of Justice, Jeff Sessions, ProPublica, Trump Administration, Politics News

For decades, the Department of Justice has used court-enforced agreements to protect civil rights, successfully desegregating school systems, reforming police departments, ensuring access for the disabled and defending the religious.

Now, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the DOJ appears to be turning away from this storied tool, called consent decrees. Top officials in the DOJ civil rights division have issued verbal instructions through the ranks to seek settlements without consent decrees — which would result in no continuing court oversight.

The move is just one part of a move by the Trump administration to limit federal civil rights enforcement. Other departments have scaled back the power of their internal divisions that monitor such abuses. In a previously unreported development, the Education Department last week reversed an Obama-era reform that broadened the agency’s approach to protecting rights of students. The Labor Department and the Environmental Protection Agency have also announced sweeping cuts to their enforcement.

“At best, this administration believes that civil rights enforcement is superfluous and can be easily cut. At worst, it really is part of a systematic agenda to roll back civil rights,” said Vanita Gupta, the former acting head of the DOJ’s civil rights division under President Barack Obama.

Consent decrees have not been abandoned entirely by the DOJ, a person with knowledge of the instructions said. Instead, there is a presumption against their use — attorneys should default to using settlements without court oversight unless there is an unavoidable reason for a consent decree. The instructions came from the civil rights division’s office of acting Assistant Attorney General Tom Wheeler and Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Gore. There is no written policy guidance.

Devin O’Malley, a spokesperson for the DOJ, declined to comment for this story.

Consent decrees can be a powerful tool, and spell out specific steps that must be taken to remedy the harm. These are agreed to by both parties and signed off on by a judge, whom the parties can appear before again if the terms are not being met. Though critics say the DOJ sometimes does not enforce consent decrees well enough, they are more powerful than settlements that aren’t overseen by a judge and have no built-in enforcement mechanism.

Such settlements have “far fewer teeth to ensure adequate enforcement,” Gupta said.

Consent decrees often require agencies or municipalities to take expensive steps toward reform. Local leaders and agency heads then can point to the binding court authority when requesting budget increases to ensure reforms. Without consent decrees, many localities or government departments would simply never make such comprehensive changes, said William Yeomans, who spent 26 years at the DOJ, mostly in the civil rights division.

“They are key to civil rights enforcement,” he said. “That’s why Sessions and his ilk don’t like them.”

READ MORE...

New Observer, “Orban: Hungary is a “Refuge for Europeans,” and Uses Tax Money to Boost Birthrate”, 24 July 2017:

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has announced that his nation will “remain a place where Western European Christians will always be able to find security”—and that his government is using taxes on multinational companies to fund social policies to spur families to have more children.

Speaking at a cultural festival in Baile Tusnad, Romania, Orbán also said that the European Union, together with Open Society founder—and Hungarian Jew—George Soros was seeking a “new, mixed, Muslimized Europe.”

He went on to say that Hungary’s border fences, supported by other Central European countries, “will block the EU-Soros effort to increase Muslim migration into Europe.”

While Hungary opposed taking in migrants “who could change the country’s cultural identity,” Orban said under his leadership, Hungary would remain a place where “Western European Christians will always be able to find security.”

He also said that Hungary’s opposition parties were no match for his government, and that he would win the next election in April 2018.

“In the upcoming campaign, first of all we have to confront external powers,” Orban said.

“We have to stand our ground against the Soros mafia network and the Brussels bureaucrats. And, during the next nine months, we will have to fight against the media they operate.”

Recent legislation in Hungary seeks to close or expel the Budapest-based Central European University, founded by Soros in 1991. There are also new rules about non-governmental organizations funded at least partly from abroad.

Orban reiterated his charge that Soros-funded NGOs want to weaken Hungary’s security with their advocacy for asylum-seekers and said Hungary had managed to stop the “migrant invasion” with razor-wire fences on its borders with Serbia and Croatia.

In the speech, broadcast by Hungarian state media, Orban repeated his claim that the EU leadership was encroaching on member states’ rights and trying to apply policies, such as increased immigration, which he said were opposed by most Europeans.

Orban said Poland, which is under pressure from the EU because of attempts to put its Supreme Court under political control, had replaced Hungary as the target of the EU’s “chief inquisitor,” whom he identified as European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans.

“The main target of the inquisition, the example of national governance to be weakened, destroyed and broken is Poland,” Orban said, vowing to defend the Polish government. “Hungary will use every legal possibility in the European Union to be in solidarity with the Poles.”

Finally, Orban said Hungary’s low birth rate made the country an “endangered species,” and that the government was using taxes on multinational companies to fund social policies that would spur families to have more children.

Independent, “Climate change denier Scott Pruitt’s appointment to run EPA would be ‘unprecedented assault’ on its work,” 7 Feb 2017.

One issue that state discretion would Not handle better is the overseeing and coordination of environmental matters, which are, by definition, of interrelated systems that do not heed political bounds, especially not smaller ones.

Trump’s crass assault on our earthly home was launched with his appointment of business plant and climate change denier, Scott Pruitt, as head of the EPA: fox in charge of the hen house. The assault is now going into overdrive.

Daily Caller, “House Republicans Lay Out Their Plan To Rein In The EPA”, 18, 2017:

House Republicans released their proposal to balance the federal budget in 10 years, which included their plans to rein in the regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Republicans plan three broad reforms for the EPA: reduce its funding, cut global warming and programs and eliminate the agency’s policy office.

“The Environmental Protection Agency has long overreached in its duties,” the House budget resolution reads, released Tuesday.

“While everyone supports protecting the environment and promoting clean air and clean water, the states are better positioned to address their individual environmental concerns and balance those responsibilities with the concerns of workers, small-businesses, and manufacturers,” the resolution adds.

However, the House’s plan for the EPA would cut the agency’s budget 80 percent less than what the White house recommended in its May budget proposal.

A House appropriations bill introduced days ago gives the EPA a $7.5 billion budget in 2017, or $528 million less than the agency’s 2017 budget. The bill also ignored many Trump administration requests to cut dozens of EPA programs. That bill is still making its way through committee.

The House appropriations bill would give $31.4 billion to federal environmental programs at the EPA, Department of the Interior and other agencies. That’s $824 million below 2017 levels, but $4.3 billion less than the White House’s request.

The White House recommended cutting the EPA’s budget $2.6 billion, or more than 30 percent, along with eliminating dozens of programs, particularly those enforcing Obama-era regulations and climate programs.

The budget proposal also included plans to eliminate duplicative energy programs and wasteful spending to help get “federal government out of the way and allow the private sector to do its job and flourish.”

That effort largely focuses on reducing Energy Department spending energy subsidies and stopping the agency from issuing any more loan guarantees — the same program that funded Solyndra.

“Eliminating these Obama-era pet programs will help us reduce federal spending in the energy sector and promote private-sector energy production and innovation,” the House budget document reads.

Republicans claim that their plan would balance the federal budget within 10 years.

Democrats and environmentalists are already pushing back on the Republican resolution.

House lawmakers will mark up the budget resolution Wednesday, and it’s expected to pass the chamber. Senate Democrats could pose problems for the budget resolution’s path to President Donald Trump’s desk.

CNN, “Massive iceberg breaks away from Antarctica”, 12 July 2017:

It’s clear that global warming, caused largely by burning fossil fuels and agricultural practices, is contributing to the broader destabilization of Antarctica, said Eric Rignot, professor of Earth systems sciences at the University of California, Irvine, and a senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

“This break-up signals that the ice shelf got too thin,” Rignot said in an email. “It got thinner because climate has been warming, over decades; the ice shelf will eventually collapse in the coming decades. This is absolutely related to climate warming. The ice shelf front has not calved this far back in 125 years (first seen by Carl Larsen in 1893) and Larsen C is on a course to collapse, very reminiscent of what happened to Larsen B in 2002.”

“This is yet another wake up call,” he said, “that Antarctica is on the rise and we should be concerned about what that means for future sea level.”

Henderson Island has long been regarded as one of the most remote and pristine islands in the world, but trash washing up on shore is turning it into a landfill. - J. Lavers 2015

Popular Science, “This remote island in the South Pacific is covered in 18 tons of our trash”, 15 May 2017:

Paradise lost

Henderson Island has long been regarded as one of the most remote and pristine islands in the world, but trash washing up on shore is turning it into a landfill.

Traveling by ship, it takes about 13 days to reach Henderson Island from New Zealand. Hidden in the South Pacific, 3000 miles from anywhere, this UNESCO World Heritage Site in the Pitcairns is “one of the most pristine islands left in the world, never inhabited by humans, rarely visited even for research purposes,” says Jennifer Lavers.

Hundreds of crabs, like this one photographed on Henderson Island, now make their homes out of plastic debris. J. Lavers 2015

After she and her colleagues disembarked on Henderson Island in May 2015 to do some ecology research, they didn’t see another ship until they got picked up at the end of August. But even though humans rarely touch the island, our fingerprints are all over it: during their stay, Lavers and her fellow researchers found that this remote island is home not only to endangered petrels and nesting sea turtles, but approximately 37,661,395 pieces of manmade trash.

Their findings are published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. After digging up a startling amount of garbage during their beach survey, Lavers (a marine ecotoxicologist from the University of Tasmania) and Alexander Bond (a conservation scientist from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) concluded that this remote island has the highest density of trash ever reported in nature.

By their calculations, Henderson is littered with at least 17.6 tons of (mostly plastic) trash—and every square meter of the beach gets around 27 new pieces of junk added to its collection every day.

David Barnes, a marine ecologist who studies plastic pollution at the British Antarctic Survey, calls this number ‘pretty scary.’ “In less than a century, plastic has made a world of difference in so many ways. We may spend centuries undoing some of the very serious problems, even if we start now,” he says. “Unfortunately the most remote wilderness spots are becoming testament to the scale of the problem, not just for biodiversity but for us.”

What’s scarier is that Henderson Island’s 17.6 tons is nothing compared to the the total weight of garbage on the planet. In fact, we create exactly that much plastic every two seconds. (Here’s a list of a few ways you can cut down on the amount the trash you generate, just in case you’re now panicking like I am.) Five trillion bits of plastic are estimated to be swilling around our oceans, but we don’t know where most of it ends up once it gets there. Today’s study indicates that remote islands like Henderson may be holding onto some of those “lost” plastics, becoming our unintentional landfills.

“Remote studies like this help us to understand rates of accumulation, composition, and fate of plastic pollution,” says Barnes, who was not involved in the study. Although the amount of trash that gets deposited varies from coastline to coastline, Lavers and Bond hope that doing more beach surveys will help to plug in some of the missing pieces of the plastics puzzle. Plus, these studies are cheaper than trawling through the garbage patches in the ocean.

“The human footprint is everywhere,” says Lavers, “and it runs deeper than most of us imagine.”

Euractiv, “Green NGOs blame Monsanto for ‘buying science’ to save glyphosate”, 24 March 2017:

The authors of the report claim that between 2012 and 2016, the companies sponsored a series of review articles published in scientific journals, all of which conclude that glyphosate and its commercial formulations are not carcinogenic. [Mike Mozart/Flickr]

A new report accuses glyphosate producers of “buying science” in order to secure the substance’s position in the EU market.

According to the Buying Science report published by GLOBAL 2000 (Friends of the Earth Austria member of Pesticide Action Network-PAN) with the support of Avaaz, BUND, Campact, CEO, GMWatch, (PAN) Europe, PAN Germany, and Umweltinstitut München, Monsanto and other glyphosate manufacturers allegedly “distorted scientific evidence” on the public health impacts of the pesticide.

The authors of the report claim that, between 2012 and 2016, the companies sponsored a series of review articles published in scientific journals, all of which conclude that glyphosate and its commercial formulations are not carcinogenic.

Scandalous

“Glyphosate producers have used every trick in the book to enable regulatory authorities around the world to play down the alarming health effects of glyphosate. The fact that the agencies accepted their ‘assistance’ is nothing less than scandalous,” insisted Helmut Burtscher, one of the study’s authors.

Earlier this month (15 March), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concluded that glyphosate weedkiller should not be classified as a carcinogen.

Environmentalist NGOs reacted strongly, with Greenpeace saying that the ECHA “sweeps glyphosate cancer evidence under the carpet”.

Glyphosate is not carcinogenic, EU agency says.

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) said today (15 March) that much-discussed glyphosate weedkiller should not be classified as a carcinogen, triggering a strong response from environmentalist NGOs.

The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) went further, claiming that the decision contradicted the world’s most authoritative cancer research agency, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” in 2015.

Scientific flaws

The NGOs claim that these reviews proving glyphosate is safe contain “fundamental scientific flaws spanning from apparently calculated omissions and the introduction of irrelevant data to the violation of OECD guidance for the evaluation of rodent cancer studies”.

“The reviews also consistently assign greater weight to unpublished industry studies than to studies that were peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals,” the report noted.

The report stressed that regulatory authorities like Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have all drawn on such review articles, which have concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic, have actually referred to these industry-sponsored review articles.

“In contrast, IARC refused to consider the unpublished industry studies summarised in industry-sponsored reviews in its assessment of glyphosate, stating that the data presented therein were insufficient and important details were lacking […] IARC generally does not accept unpublished scientific evidence,” the authors of the report concluded.

Europe poised for total ban on bee-harming pesticides.

The world’s most widely used insecticides would be banned from all fields across Europe under draft regulations from the European Commission, seen by EURACTIV’s partner The Guardian.

Positions

European Commission Spokesperson Enrico Brivio recently told EURACTIV that the EU executive “took notice” of ECHA’s opinion, which was “based on scientific evidence”.

“The submission of the final opinion to the Commission is expected before the summer break […] After submission of the final opinion, the Commission Services will re-start their discussions with the member states as regards the approval of glyphosate as an active substance in Plant Protection Products (PPPs).”

“A decision has to be taken within 6 months of receipt of the RAC Opinion from ECHA, or by the end of 2017 – at the latest,” he added.

An EFSA spokesperson said, after this article was published, that “EFSA is the first to defend the importance of reliable science as it forms the basis of all our risk assessments”, adding “from an initial glance at the “Purchased Science” report, it is clear that the majority of mentioned studies were published after EFSA had completed its assessment of glyphosate. In other words, they did not play any role in the EFSA assessment of glyphosate”.

“There are two scientific reviews mentioned in the report (Williams et al 2000, Kier and Kirkland 2013) that were among the 700 references considered in the EU assessment for glyphosate. EFSA and EU member states rely primarily on the original studies and the underlying raw data which they check themselves. The weight given to reviews of scientific studies (like the ones mentioned in the report) is limited,” they added.

“There are no grounds to suggest that reviews of scientific studies, sponsored directly or indirectly by industry, improperly influenced the EU risk assessment for glyphosate,” the spokesperson concluded.

Background

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to cause cancer in humans and proposed higher limits on the amount of residue of the weedkiller deemed safe for humans to consume.

The EFSA advises EU policymakers and its conclusion were expected to pave the way for the 28-member European Union to renew approval for glyphosate, which was brought into use by Monsanto in the 1970s and is used in its top selling product Roundup as well as in many other herbicides around the world.

Environmental groups have been calling for a ban after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organisation, said in March 2015 that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

A campaign group said that 1.4 million people had signed a petition calling on the European Union to suspend glyphosate approval pending further assessment.

The EFSA said it had carried out a thorough analysis and taken account of the IARC’s findings. Greenpeace, for its part, called the EFSA’s report “a whitewash”.

Together back in the 80s, when Carl Icahn was showing Donald Trump the ropes of “corporate-take-over”, such as his plunder of TWA.

The Carl Icahn episode that pilfered the corporate culture of the once bustling American town—Lancaster, Ohio—is highly instructive of itself. It provides a lesson in its farther implications, however, as it set in motion transformations of that corporate culture which effected a perverse irony of its residents becoming Trump voters, seeking a return to their corporate culture as it had been - implicitly White - oblivious to the fact that they are hoping to do this through Trump, whose appointed gate-keeper is Carl Icahn - the very man who plundered Lancaster’s corporate culture and set in motion its transformative demise, with devastating impact upon the now rust-belt town and its people (nearly all White).
 
(((NPR))) doesn’t provide a transcript of portions which refer to Carl Icahn, e.g.

NPR, Glass House’ Chronicles The Sharp Decline Of An All-American Factory Town, 6 Feb 2017:

13:10: Dave Davies: “When did outside financial interests first pose a challenge to the management of Anchor Hocking, this giant of a company?

Brian Alexander: The first time was Carl Icahn.

It is meaningful that the relatively brief episode of Carl Icahn’s corporate raid on Anchor-Hocking did not merely lead to a limited financial downturn following the large (what amounts to) bribe that he levied against the company in order to get rid of him, but it had implicative force which transformed even the subsequent non-Jewish corporate culture, creating a new corporate culture - a new context, if you will. That is the kind of thing that the serious ethno-nationalist will want to examine further.

Ibid:

Brian Alexander: It’s the 1980’s, Carl Icahn has just begun his career of what became known at the time as “green mailing.”

Dave Davies: “Corporate raiding”, “corporate take-overs.”

Alexander: “Corporate raiding”, saying now I’ve just bought 5% of your stock. I want a seat on the board. You’re running your company in a lousy way; and so I’m going to come and make all sorts of trouble for you, but you know, if you want to buy me out, at a profit, at a premium, well maybe I’ll go away; and so that’s exactly what happened with Carl Icahn.

Carl Icahn bought over 5% of the stock of Anchor Hocking, agitated the board, saying you need to make some different decisions, you could be returning more share-holder value and was eventually bought off at what I calculate to be about a three million dollar profit to Carl Icahn.

That episode did not last long, but I argue that it changed Anchor Hocking forever, from then on.

Dave Davies: In what way?

Brian Alexander: It scared people…

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

NPR, Glass House’ Chronicles The Sharp Decline Of An All-American Factory Town, 6 Feb 2017:

NPR host Dave Davies: We heard a lot in the presidential campaign about anger and frustration among working class voters in America’s heartland. Today we’re going to focus on one factory town in central Ohio that was once a bustling center of industry and employment, but is now beset by low wages, unemployment and social decay.

Lancaster, Ohio isn’t just a research subject for our guest Brian Alexander, it’s his hometown.

His new book tells the story of the company that was once Lancaster’s largest employer - Anchor-Hocking Glass Company was a Fortune 500 company with its headquarters in the town. The company provided jobs, civic leadership and community pride. It’s decline Alexander argues isn’t just a product of increased competition and changing markets, he says the firm was undone by Wall Street investors who had little knowledge of the company and little interest in anything besides short-term profit.

READ MORE...

Tanya Gersh has called upon Sherry Spencer to sell her Whitefish, Montana building.

Richard Spencer’s mother, Sherry Spencer, had no intention of selling her Whitefish, Montana building until she received terrible threats, the threats she said came from Tanya Gersh, a local realtor with links to so-called “human rights” organizations.

According to Sherry Spencer, on November 22nd, Tanya Gersh spoke with her on the phone and she relayed that if Sherry Spencer did not sell her building that 200 protestors and the national media would show up outside - which would drive down the property value - until she complied. Gersh’s other conditions included that Mrs. Spencer should publicly denounce her son in a statement written by the Montana Human Rights Network and that she make a donation to this organization from the sale of the property. As Gersh announced on Facebook, she was “spear heading” the campaign.

Gersh followed up on her conditions in a number of emails, which have been made public. She even shamelessly suggested that she act as Sherry’s realtor! In other words, she and the local “human rights” organizations appeared to seek financial benefit from threats of protests and reputation damage. They also threatened tenants currently leasing space from Spencer’s mom.

Sherry had no intention of selling her property in Whitefish until being harassed and receiving this pressure from Tanya Gersh, as leveraged by threats of protest from the anti-racist protest organizations - Love Lives Here  and Montana Human Rights Network - apparently at her behest to serve three functions:

1) To punish her son for promoting White Nationalist sovereignty.

2) To profit her local real estate business by instigating Sherry to a fire sale of her property.

3) To profit liberal groups such as “Love Lives Here” through donation of sale proceeds to them or similar anti-racist organizations: which generally oppose the necessary practice of social classification and discrimination on the basis of those social classifications (a least as Whites may render them - as such, they call it “racism”); despite the fact that capacity for social classification and discrimination is humanly impossible to avoid and absolutely necessary for survival of and against certain human species; as well as a generally necessary practice in defense against predation in order to facilitate human and pervasive ecology.

DM, 15 Dec 2016:

The mother of white supremacist Richard Spencer claims she is suffering financially due to the backlash against her son’s controversial views.

Sherry Spencer, who lives in Whitefish, Montana, said she is being forced to sell a building she owns in the small town because residents are rebelling against her son.

Sherry Spencer says she is being forced to considering selling the building she owns at 22 Lupfer Avenue (pictured), because of backlash against her son.

Richard Spencer shot to prominence last month when footage emerged of him delivering a ‘hateful speech’ at a white nationalist meeting held to celebrate Donald Trump’s election win.

A video by The Atlantic taken inside the Ronald Reagan building showed Spencer, leader of the National Policy Institute, shouting, ‘Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!’ as some of the people in attendance lifted their hands in a Nazi salute.

He also claimed America belongs to white people, who he suggested are faced with the decision to either ‘conquer or die’.

The speech drew intense criticism from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, which said in a statement Spencer made: ‘several direct and indirect references to Jews and other minorities, often alluding to Nazism.’

‘He spoke in German to quote Nazi propaganda and refer to the mainstream media. He implied that the media was protecting Jewish interests and said, “One wonders if these people are people at all?”’

And according to Sherry Spencer, the criticism has been echoed by people in her hometown - where he son also has a business registered and visits regularly.

Sherry Spencer told KTMF she is selling a building she owns at 22 Lupfer Avenue, which she currently sublets. It houses a beauty salon and vacation rentals. She also runs a real estate business from the building.

‘As painful as this is, I am exploring a potential sale of the building,’ she said.

She also took aim at a local human rights group, Love Lives Here, and accused it of damaging her family.

‘We are stunned by the actions of Love Lives Here, an organization claiming to advocate tolerance and equal treatment of all citizens, yet coursing financial harm to many innocent parties,’ she said.

One of the strongest opponents to Sherry is local real estate agent Tanya Gersh, who said Spencer has backed her son and allowed him to spread his views.

‘She is profiting off of the people of the local community, all the while having facilitated Richard’s work spreading hate by letting him live and use her home address for his organization,’ Gersh told the network.

Love Lives Here also responded to Sherry’s remarks, saying it ‘did not know what she (was) talking about’.

‘We don’t cause financial harm to anybody,’ co-founder Ina Albert said, before going on to say the group does not have a specific problem with the Spencers.

‘I don’t know what (Richard) does when he comes here. But that is not our problem with Richard Spencer.

‘It is the National Policy Institute and what that stands for and our town being smeared by his philosophy.’

The National Policy Institute was established in 2005 by Spencer, and it is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as ‘hate group’.

Gersh went on to call for Sherry to sell the building immediately, and then use the money to help human rights causes.

‘(She) Could address this by selling the building, making a donation to human rights efforts, and making a statement in opposition to white supremacist ideas spread by Richard,’ Gersh said.

Sherry Spencer also told the network she loves her son, but does not agree with his ‘extreme positions’.

Sherry Spencer is pictured with her husband Dr. Rand Spencer at a benefit in April 2016

As Sherry Spencer writes:

These threats came from Tanya Gersh, a local realtor with links to “human rights” organizations Love Lives Here [Phone: 406-309-5678] and the Montana Human Rights Network [Phone:406-442-5506].

On November 22, Gersh and I spoke on the phone. She relayed to me that if I did not sell my building, 200 protesters and national media would show up outside — which would drive down the property value — until I complied. Gersh’s other conditions included that I make a public denunciation of my son in a statement written by the Montana Human Rights Network and that I make a donation to this organization from the sale of the property. As Gersh announced on Facebook, she was “spear heading” the campaign.

Gersh followed up on her conditions in a number of emails, which I’ve just made public. She even shamelessly suggested that she act as my realtor! In other words, she and the local “human rights” organizations appeared to seek financial benefit from threats of protests and reputation damage.

READ MORE...