Majorityrights News > Category: Geopolitics

Genocide by Substitution

Here is Genocide by Substitution on Bitchute, since it has been stricken by Youtube:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Mdpj52Iz0F22/

Sieg Fail

I believe the Greeks and Romans (for example) were more inventive than he is giving them credit for, but Ryan Faulk is offering specificatory structures (an Alternative Hypothesis) which can work against bad will arguments proffered from the international liberalism of Marxists and Cultural Marxists.

However, that is one of the limitations to the I.Q. and genetics sort of rebuts - the main utility that they have is against bad will and rather stupid arguments.

We are defending our race (genus European) and its species (ethnicities), not I.Q. or even the accomplishments of I.Q. per se. True, the products of our genius are not only an added benefit, but crucial to our survival. However, ethnonationalism protects these differences.

It is primarily bad will arguments that will need to be defended against when it comes to populating functions among our ethnostates that may require an I.Q. argument to rebut a stupid objection; e.g., if someone were to say that their retarded son should be allowed to engineer a high-rise building.

On the other hand, if a black person, or a Jewish person has a higher I.Q. than your son or your daughter, should you then say that they are a fit replacement, your new child?

This is Luke Ford level absurdity.

It is like a magic trick or a card trick to distract attention from the fact that we are defending species, human ecologies, not a single variable.

Objectivist arguments in lieu of relative racial group interests can disingenuously serve to distract from aspects and doings - other than a blindered, narrow view of merit - that have had Jewish hegemony in niche power and influence as profound ever - a fact they wish to distract from as their qualitative, relative ethnocentric difference is of a different tribe who are largely indifferent where not antagonistic to our group interests.

Naturally we don’t want our positive attributes dragged down, to amplify malfunction, but again, I.Q. rebuts are largely limited to staving-off bad will, typically stupid arguments.

And you can see the danger in Faulk’s argument, that he may be isolating one group or area of Europeans; whereas ethnonationalism would serve to protect those distinctions anyway, while not running the risk of throwing under the bus and perhaps even creating antagonism rather than crucial allies among other parts of Europe which may be more a necessary part of our systemic function and survival than he realizes in addition to being perhaps more talented than he realizes.

Finally, the I.Q. and genetics rebut can indeed be used in bad will itself against social justice and to further supremacism, imperialism, exploitation as opposed to ethnonationalism and its coordination. If these arguments are not made judiciously and with the wisdom of ecological thinking (facilitated by ethnonationalism), they can generate unnecessary antagonism within and from without our genus; thus increasing the difficulty of maintaining our group systemic homeostasis, not reducing it.

Salvini quotes Ezra Pound, “If a man is not ready to fight for his ideas, either his ideas are worthless, or he is,”

Italian ethnonationalist leader Matteo Salvini is to stand trial on charges of illegally detaining migrants at sea after senators voted Wednesday to strip him of his parliamentary immunity.

The Globe Post, 12 Feb 2020:

A court in Sicily recommended that former interior minister Salvini stand trial for blocking migrants from disembarking from a coast guard boat last July.

But ministers cannot be tried for actions taken while in office unless their parliamentary immunity is revoked.

The Senate’s decision sends the chief of the anti-immigrant League party to trial for abuse of power and illegal detention, charges for which he faces up to 15 years in jail.

“I have defended Italy. I have full and total faith in the justice system,” Salvini told ANSA news agency after the vote.

“I am not worried at all, and I’m proud of what I’ve done,” he said, adding he would “do it again when I get back into power.”

Salvini had refused to allow 116 rescued migrants to leave the Gregoretti coast guard boat – where they had been languishing for about a week in insalubrious conditions – until a deal was reached with other European states to host them.

A Catania court accused him of “abuse of power” in blocking them on board from July 27 to July 31 last year, and of illegally detaining them.

Salvini insists the decision had the backing of the government and Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte.

‘Head Held High’

Before the debate began, Salvini took to Facebook to say he had his “head held high, with the calm conscience of those who have defended their land and people.”

“If a man is not ready to fight for his ideas, either his ideas are worthless, or he is,” Salvini wrote, quoting Ezra Pound, a 20th-century American poet known for his fascist sympathies.

The Gregoretti on July 25 took on board 140 migrants who were trying to make the perilous crossing from war-torn Libya to Europe – the same day 110 migrants drowned off the Libyan coast.

READ MORE...

Prior to his arrest in 2003 Khodorkovsky (in photo with first Russian President Boris Yeltsin) funded several Russian parties, including the Communist Party, most of which were in competition with each other. Voltairenet.org

EURACTIV.com with Reuters, 18 Feb 2020:

A Dutch appeals court on Tuesday (18 February) overturned the annulment of a $50 billion award to shareholders in the now defunct Russian oil giant Yukos, a surprise ruling 13 years after the assets came under control of the Kremlin.

Yukos Oil went bankrupt in 2006 after its former chief Mikhail Khodorkovsky fell out with Russian leader Vladimir Putin and the government began demanding billions of dollars in back taxes that ultimately resulted in its being expropriated by the state.

Tuesday’s verdict reinstates a decision by The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ordering the Russian state to compensate shareholders in the company once headed by fallen oligarch Khodorkovsky. That decision had been overturned in April 2016 by The Hague District Court.

Russia’s Justice Ministry has said it will challenge the appeals court ruling at the Dutch Supreme Court.

“The (lower) court ruled in favour of the Russian Federation, but the court of appeal in The Hague today ruled that the court’s verdict is incorrect. This means that the arbitral award is again in force,” the appeals court said in a statement.

Most of Yukos’ assets were absorbed by the Kremlin’s flagship oil producer Rosneft, and its former owners have for years been trying to recover their possessions.

Legal proceedings seeking damages have been brought by GML, formerly known as Group Menatep Ltd., which held around 70% of shares in Yukos.

Rule of law

Tim Osborne, GML’s chief executive, said the latest ruling was “a victory for the rule of law.”

“The independent courts of a democracy have shown their integrity and served justice. A brutal kleptocracy has been held to account,” he said.

The PCA had ruled in July 2014 that four plaintiffs – not including Khodorkovsky – were entitled to compensation for the loss of their holdings, enabling them to go after Russian state assets.

France, Belgium seize Russian assets to compensate Yukos shareholders

Russian government assets in France and Belgium including bank accounts have been frozen in a row over compensation for shareholders of defunct oil giant Yukos, officials and a claimant representative said yesterday (18 June).

READ MORE...

The West Wall at night (fragment) Wayne Mclean (jgritz) CC

Israel court upholds DNA testing to prove Judaism

MEMO, 27 Jan 2020

The much-derided and controversial discipline of using DNA to prove one’s race, religion and nationality has been upheld by the Israeli High Court following a legal challenge to its use in the determination of Jewishness. A panel of High Court justices rejected a petition against the Chief Rabbinate and the rabbinical court’s ruling that DNA testing to prove one’s Judaism should be allowed.

In the legal challenge, which according to Haaretz was filed by Yisrael Beitenu’s Avigdor Lieberman and several private petitioners, the judges dismissed their case that the rabbinate acted in a discriminatory manner by demanding DNA tests to prove one’s Judaism.

The case re-opens an ongoing feud over conducting genetic tests to determine who is and isn’t a Jew. With Israel electing to define itself in racial terms by declaring itself to be a “Jewish state”, conception of race as something existing in the blood, crushed civic notions of race and nationality, upon which modern democratic states are established.

READ : Netanyahu uses DNA claim to deny Palestinian right to homeland

Israel’s matrimonial law which is religious, not civil, has also meant that couples are required to prove their Jewishness through DNA testing if their heritage is in doubt. In Israel Jews can marry Jews, but intermarriage with Muslims or Christians is not permitted. This means that when a Jewish couple want to tie the knot, they are required by law to prove their Jewishness to the Rabbinate according to Orthodox tradition, which defines Jewish ancestry as being passed down through the mother.

According to the court’s decision DNA, “testing can only benefit the person being tested, whether he accepts the testing or refuses to undergo the test”. The judges debated the need for compiling a set of written rules around DNA testing, which they claimed would avert disagreements over its use.

During the hearing, the representative of the rabbinical court agreed to bring the matter of setting the rules in writing before the Chief Rabbinical Council.

Brexit day celebration: U.K. leaves the E.U.

“Enjoy The Moment” - Mancinblack

A Union Jack flag flutters in front of Big Ben as workers inspect one of its clocks, in London on Sept 11. (Reuters photo)

Britain Is Finally Leaving the EU. That’s Where the Debate Begins.

And it’s not just about Leave vs. Remain.

Politico, 30 Jan 2020:

LONDON, ENGLAND: Anti-Brexit campaigner Steve Bray protesting outside of the Houses of Parliament on January 30, 2020 in London, United Kingdom. At 11.00pm on Friday 31st January the UK and Northern Ireland will exit the European Union 188 weeks after the referendum on June 23rd 2016.

In 2016, Britain voted for Brexit. On Friday—four years, three prime ministers and two general elections later—the country will leave the European Union. Officially stepping out into the world is a major moment for a country that has driven itself mad on the tortuous path to the exit door. And yet, even the buildup to this historic event typified the silliest aspects of the years between the “leave” vote and the actual leaving.

Two quarrels about how Britain would mark the occasion broke out in recent weeks, one about a bell, the other about a coin. First came the fuss about whether Big Ben would ring out to mark the moment of independence. This Brexiteer wish was complicated by the fact that the bell, and the tower that houses it, are undergoing renovations, meaning a single bong would come with a $700,000 price tag. After Parliament refused to fund the move, and an online fundraising campaign failed to fill the gap, there will be no Big Ben bongs. “If Big Ben doesn’t bong, the world will see us as a joke,” lamented Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage.

A second brouhaha broke out over a commemorative 50 pence coin issued to mark the occasion. The coins, which read, “Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations,” soon drew the ire of disbelieving Remainers. Otherwise serious and self-respecting members of the British establishment said they would refuse to use the coins or would deface any that came into their possession. (The novelist Philip Pullman also complained that the coin “is missing an Oxford comma and should be boycotted by all literate people.”)

Britain’s talent for turning these trivial rows into front-page stories illustrates how much the Brexit debate has become a negative-sum culture war, with Leavers and Remainers each compelled to take a side. Yet these dust-ups also obscure some of the more interesting, and important, divides over what Britain does with its newfound freedom. So far, much of the conversation has been backward looking, focused on whether the country would give effect to the 2016 vote with a viable version of Brexit, or whether that vote should be ignored. As Britain leaves the EU, and finally casts an eye forward, there are as many disputes as ever, with global implications, and the fault lines are more complicated than just Leave vs. Remain.

When Prime Minister Boris Johnson triumphed in last month’s election with a promise to “get Brexit done,” his opponents argued that after the sun rises on February 1, Britain’s future relationship with the EU, and a host of related questions, would remain unresolved. In a narrow sense, that claim is irrefutable. But it also misses the bigger picture.

The case for Brexit was built on possibilities. Among other things, exiting the EU allows Britain to decide for itself what trade relationships it should pursue with the rest of the world, the criteria it should set for its immigration system and how to regulate a host of areas that have been the competence of the EU for decades. These are big, difficult decisions in and of themselves. They aren’t part of a Brexit process that will ever be finished. Britain will not one day declare mission accomplished and no longer give any thought to, for example, trade policy—something that, as Americans will know, is an ongoing consideration in the politics of sovereign countries.

Understand that fact, and the divide between Leave and Remain starts to look less significant. On trade, for example, there is a split among Leavers. An image of buccaneering “Global Britain” striking trade deals with fast-growing economies around the world was a big part of the case pro-Brexit politicians made. There is little enthusiasm for this vision among Leave voters. According to one poll, Leave voters were more likely to support protectionist trade policies than Remainers. In fact, whether someone voted Leave was the single best predictor of a person’s support for barriers to trade. Politicians eager to use Brexit as an opportunity for liberalizing UK trade will have to think carefully about which voters they can rely on.

READ MORE...