[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 30 September 2019 21:00.
Statue of Bandera in Western Ukraine.
Ukrainian Nationalism and its Demons from the Past
By Sébastien Meuwissen at Visigrad Post
Poland/Ukraine – On January 1st, 2019, several thousands of Ukrainians marched in the streets of Kiev, Lviv and Khmelnytskyï (Western Ukraine) to celebrate the 110th anniversary of the birth of Stepan Bandera. These past years, there were plenty of similar processions in Ukraine, in particular in the Western part. Thousands of young Ukrainians take part in these nationalists marches, where they wave flags picturing Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych. Even though they contributed to the creation of an independent Ukraine, the two men have been guilty of many war crimes in their collaboration with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Nowadays Bandera and Shukhevych remain controversial historical figures. For some they are national heroes and for others they are criminals.
A territory coveted by its powerful neighbours
In a matter of territorial size, Ukraine is the third biggest country in Europe (behind Russia and France). The name “Ukraine” (in Ukrainian: Україна [ukrɑˈjinɑ]) was used for the first time in reference to the territory of Kievian Rus in the XIIth century. Throughout its history this huge territory was targeted by many invasions and was annexed by some European powers.
During the XVIIth century almost the entire territory of what is now Ukraine fell under the control of the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania. Later during the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries, the Austro-Hungarian (at the West) and Russian (in the Center and at the East) empires shared this Eastern European territory. After the First World War, Poland reappeared on European maps and took most of the Western parts while USSR took the rest of the territory under its control.
The Soviet context and the “Holodomor”
Ukraine suffered tremendously from soviet occupation. The most obvious example of this harsh time is certainly the Soviet caused famine of 1932-1933. The Ukrainian famine named “Holodomor” (in Ukrainian: голодомо́р, extermination by hunger) is seen by many people as a mass murder that can be related to a genocide (even though this event isn’t in a lot of history books).
In a period of just a year and a half, this starvation caused the death of six to eight million people, according to various sources, with two to five millions solely in Ukraine. Even though most of the victims were ethnically Ukrainians, they were not the only ones afflicted by the murderous policy of Stalin (hundreds of thousands of Russians, Tatars and Kazakhs also died).
A coveted multicultural area
During the first half of the XXth century, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions considerably grew in Western Ukraine. According to a population census from 1931 the Ukrainians (mostly Orthodox) constituted the major part of the local population (64%) in the Western region of Volhynia. Other ethnic and religious groups were the Poles (15,6%), the Jews (10%), Germans (2,3%) and other groups less numerous (Czech, Slovaks, Belorussians, …). (1) The already existent tensions between these various groups would considerably grow during the ’30s to evolve into a true hate during the Second World War.
At this time two Ukraines seemed to emerge. On one hand the Western Ukraine that was earlier under Polish and Austrian influence and on the other hand the russified Eastern Ukraine. To the eyes of Ukrainian independentists, Poland and the USSR were hereditary enemies of the Ukrainian nation and should be fought to allow for the creation of an independent Ukrainian state. This was precisely this goal of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (or OUN), created in 1929.
The strategy of the OUN to reach the creation of an independent Ukraine included violence and terrorism against those who were seen as enemies of an independent Ukraine. Among those cited as the “external” enemies of Ukraine – Poland and USSR – and the “internal” enemies, so to say all people who weren’t ethnically Ukrainian or suspected to collaborate with the enemy. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (or UPA) was a paramilitary nationalist army engaged in a series of conflicts during the Second World War. It was composed by various fighter groups of the OUN. The OUN and the UPA had for leaders, respectively, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych.
Collaboration with Nazi Germany
A few years later, the Second World War began. In 1940, many Western Ukrainians saw Nazi Germany like a partner susceptible to help the creation of an independent Ukrainian state. Hitler was considered a symbol of hope in front of the soviet domination. The act of restoration of the Ukrainian state from the 30th of June, 1941, is very clear on this:
“3. The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Muscovite occupation.” (2)
On April 28 the division “SS Galizien” was created. It was a military formation mostly made up by Ukrainian volunteers from the region of Galicia (Western Ukraine). Under the initiative of the Wehrmacht, the SS Galizien division slaughtered practically the entirety of the Jewish population of this region.
The massacre of Volhynia
Once the Jewish population were eliminated, the Poles were targeted. It is principally in the Western region of Ukraine that the slaughter of the Polish minority took place. While the Second World War was raging, Ukrainian nationalist leaders commanded their supporters to slaughter the Polish population in the region. Here is a passage of the order given by the OUN on the 2nd of February 1944 to its members:
“Liquidate every inch of Polishness. Destroy the Catholic churches and other Polish cult places (…) Destroy the houses so there is no trace that someone lived there (…) Keep in mind that if something Polish remains, then Poles will come to claim our territories.” (3)
The groups of Ukrainian nationalists went to the towns of Galicia and Volhynia and killed between 40,000 and 60,000 people, mostly women and children. None were spared. On the 11th of July nearly 100 villages were plundered and the population was slaughtered in the most brutal way. Besides murdering the local population, the Banderas tortured with a rare atrocity. Despite the absence of resistance, civilians were killed in their houses, at school, in the churches, or in offices. As practiced later by the Soviet army, rape was largely used as a terror weapon.
The legacy and the demons from the past
The Polish writer Jan Zaleski said: “The Poles living in Volhynia were killed twice. The first time by a weapon and the second time by silence.” With these words he was referring to the way the history of the massacre of Volhynia is often avoided and to the Ukrainian denial of the atrocities that were committed. Besides the numerous crimes committed by the members of the OUN and the UPA, many Ukrainians consider the leaders of these organizations as national heroes. We can see as a proof the various monuments to the glory of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych in the Western part of the country, particularly in the city of Lviv where they are regularly maintained.
The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Andrej Babis, has slammed policies promoting mass migration and population replacement which are both propagated by globalist governments in Western Europe.
While touching on the subject which is commonly referred to as ’Replacement Migration‘ during an interview with Die Welt, Babis said, “We do not see migration as a means of counteracting a shrinking population, as in Western Europe.”
Echoing his Visegrád partner Viktor Orbán, Babis also spoke about how he would like to increase the low birthrates of his own country where women, on average, have just 1.7 children.
“We want to get the Czechs to have more children,” Babis said.
After the German reporter asserted that it’s “not very climate-friendly” to set government incentives for people to have more children, Babis responded, saying: “I have four children. Then I’m probably climate-damaging.”
In Germany, a country where a large portion of the population seems to have lost touch with reality, there are now certain climate activists who measure everything in terms of carbon dioxide and would, therefore, prefer to ban child-bearing.
Babis went on to say that the only people who immigrate to the Czech Republic are invited by its government.
“We welcome foreigners, more than five percent of our population is born abroad, but we are the ones who decide who comes here and who does not,” the Czech Prime Ministere declared.
Throughout his tenure as the leader of the small central European country, Babis hasn’t wavered in his opposition to mass migration from the third world – something the EU technocrats are certainly not happy with.
In the past, Babis has suggested that the EU should model its asylum policy after the Australian model, which processes those seeking asylum outside of the country.
Dangerfield falls into the liberal game a bit, by continuing to demonize “racism” (in essence, social classification and the capacity for necessary discrimination thereupon), calling the anti-fa, in their “Anti-Whiteness” conference, the “real racists” - but this is an honest mistake that indicates his good will; therefore, while I may take issue with the theoretical error of necessity, the overall thrust of his passionate criticism is good and well enough articulated.
For good measure, lets add, Anti-Racism is Cartesian - can be said to be a Jewish construct, anti-White weaponization at that - it is not innocent, it is prejudice, it is prejudice against prejudice (necessary discrimination based on patterns), it is hurting and it is killing people.
In a rousing speech given at an annual event hosted by the national-conservative Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) party in Rome, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced that his governments rejects the EU’s migrant redistribution quotas, but would “accept deportation quotas with pleasure”.
Once Italy holds elections, the Brothers of Italy will likely be a key player in the next ethnonational populist governing coalition, along with Salvini’s League.
Throughout the speech, Orbán implored Italy’s leadership to protect its citizens and close its borders.
While he acknowledged that the country’s new leftist coalition government appears to be realigning itself with globalists in Brussels, Orban also said that Hungary would be there to fully support Italy when and if it removes its anti-Italian and anti-European leadership.
“Hungary is ready to help Italy in whatever way we can, but there are areas where we cannot help,” Orbán said. “We cannot help with the transport and settlement of any migrants in Hungary. That is impossible.”
“But once you decide it, we can help you defend your borders, and if you are determined to send home the migrants who are already here, we can help you with that, too.”
“Mandatory settlement quotas, we cannot accept, but deportation quotas with pleasure,” Orbán declared.
Vlad Tepesblog @Vladtepesblog
Last 2 minutes of Viktor Orban speech in Italy.
“So if PM Conte were to ask the Hungarians to send home a couple of thousand migrants from Italy back to where they came from, then Hungary will be ready and help fulfill such obligations,” the Hungarian PM continued.
Orbán also touched on the steps his government has taken to support Hungarian families but asserted that there are still too few children being born.
“If we don’t do something to counter the negative demographic trend, it will never change,” Orbán added. He then insisted that he would never support globalist policies which seek to replace the children who aren’t being born with migrants.
The Hungarian then wrapped up his speech with this sobering statement: “We are in the minority in the European political elite, but in the majority among nations and people. Our opposition is big, rich, strong and well organized, thus we must fight an unjustly difficult battle for what is right.”
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 25 September 2019 13:51.
What provokes this question, of course, is the speech’s heavy emphasis on putting the civic nation of America fist, ZOG-ed out as it is, with other European national leaders commended to put their nations first, as well, though most are now good and fucked in terms of immigrant numbers. That is, plain “nationalism” will be too soft to deal with ethnonational requirements - which entail not just immigration limitation, but large scale deportation and coordination over the problems that created the migratory gluts.
Furthermore, this call for nationalism does little to curb the misallocated fervor of America’s Evangelical Christian Zionists, a hugely problematic demographic to White interests - a demographic instrumental to Israeli Operation Clean Break, A.K.A. “Project For a New American Century” which has used the American military to effect regime change around Israel, beginning with Iraq and now taking aim at Iran and Syria.
In terms of domestic politics, Ethnonationalists might see the same creators of the problem and reaction now proposing a solution - while posed with more of a (((paleocon))) rather than (((neocon))) flavor, the problem - demographic - is baked in the cake and its instigators can present themselves as reasonable nationalists, thusly obstructing radical solutions while the problem manifests fully in a veritable Christian-cucked and civic nationalist holding pattern.
Nevertheless, as ethnonationalists, we might parlay the world-promulgated talking points that are in line with our interests and take advantage of their potential for much needed normalization and institutionalization after decades of international liberalization of our borders and bounds.
“The free world must embrace its national foundations. It must not attempt to erase them or replace them. Looking around, and all over, this large, magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see, if you want freedom take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty, and if you want peace, love your nation. Wise leaders always put the good of their people and their own country, first. The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations, who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.
[...]
One of our most critical challenges is illegal immigration, which undermines prosperity, rips apart societies and empowers ruthless criminal cartels. Mass illegal immigration is unfair, unsafe and unsustainable for everyone involved. .... yet here in the United States and around the world there is a growing cottage industry of radical activists and non-governmental organizations that promote human smuggling. These groups encourage illegal migration and demand erasure of national borders. Today I have a message for those open border activists, who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice. Your policies are not just. Your policies are cruel and evil. You are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men women and children. You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives and well being of countless innocent people. When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity.
Many of the countries here today are coping with the challenges of uncontrolled migration. Each of you has the absolute right to protect your borders; and so, of course, does our country. Today, we must resolve together to end human smuggling, end human trafficking, and put these criminal networks out of business for good. To our country, I can tell you that we are working closely with our friends in the region, including Mexico, Canada, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama, to uphold the integrity of borders and ensure safety and prosperity for our people. I would like to thank Lopez Obrador of Mexico, for the great cooperation we are receiving; and for right now, putting 27,000 troops on our southern border.
[...]
The American people are absolutely committed to restoring balance to our relationship with China. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will be beneficial for both countries. But as I have made very clear. I will not accept a bad deal for the American people.
[...]
The United States does not seek conflict with any other nation. We desire peace, cooperation and mutual gain with all. But I will never fail to defend America’s interests. One of the greatest security threats facing peace-loving nations in the world today is the repressive regime in Iran.
The regimes’ record of death and destruction is well-know to us all. Not only is Iran the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism, but Iran’s leaders are fueling the tragic wars in both Syria and Yemen. At the same time, the regime is squandering the nature’s wealth and future in a fanatical quest for nuclear weapons and a means to deliver them. We must never allow this to happen; to stop Iran’s path to nuclear weapons and missiles I withdrew the Unites States from the terrible Iran nuclear deal, which has very little time remaining; which did not allow for the inspection of important sites and did not cover ballistic missiles. Following our withdrawal, we have implemented severe economic sanctions on the country; hoping to free itself from sanctions, the regime has escalated its violent and unprovoked aggression; in response to Iran’s recent attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities we just imposed the highest level of sanctions on Iran’s central bank and sovereign wealth fund; all nations have a duty to act, no responsible government should subsidize Iran’s blood lust. As long as Iran’s menacing behavior continues, sanctions will not be lifted, they will be tightened.
Iran’s leaders will have turned a proud nation into just another cautionary tale of what happens when a ruling class abandons its people and embarks upon a crusade for personal power and riches. For 40 years the world has listened to Iran’s rulers as they lash-out at everyone else for the problems they alone have created. They conduct ritual chants of “death to America” and traffic in monstrous anti-Semitism. Last year, the country’s supreme leader stated Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor that has to be removed and eradicated. It is possible and it will happen. America will never tolerate such anti-Semitic hate. Fanatics have long used hatred of Israel to distract from their own failures.
[...]
The dictator, Maduro, is a Cuban puppet, protected by Cuban body guards, hiding from his own people, while Cuba plunders Venezuela’s oil wealth to sustain its own corrupt communist rule.
[...]
We will find more beautiful friendship and more harmony among nations than ever before. My fellow leaders, the path to peace and progress and freedom and justice and a better world for all humanity begins at home. Thank you, God bless you, God bless the nations of the world and God bless America. Thank you very much.”
The USA, particularly as its become more and more ZOG-ed, has a pretty good record for death and destruction too.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 22 September 2019 08:10.
John Mearsheimer, The Roots of Liberal Hegemony, Yale University speech, published 22 Nov 2017.
(17:54): I just want to be clear, that if we’re going to [be talking about] liberalism, we’re talking about at home, not liberalism abroad; and with regard to nationalism, I’m not making the argument that nationalism is this wonderful force all the time.
Okay. Roots of liberal hegemony - the talk tonight. As I said, you’ve got to start with human nature, that was my chapter two. And when you talk about human nature, really what you’re asking is, ‘what are those common traits that all individuals have in common?’
And by the way, this is something that the founding fathers of liberalism paid enormous attention-to.
I believe that if you’re going to think about liberalism and nationalism, you have to wrestle with these questions.
And there are two big questions:
1) The first question is, ‘are men and women social beings above all else or does it make more sense to emphasize their individuality? In other words, are humans fundamentally social animals, who strive hard to carve out room for their individuality, or are they individuals who form social contracts?
That’s question number one.
2) Question number two, second, have our critical faculties developed to the point where we can reach universal consensus, on what defines the good life - can we agree on first principles?
Can we use reason? Are we able to reason our way through collectively and come to meaningful agreement on the big questions about life?
Those are sort of the two big issues on the table when you think about human nature.
Now, my views on this subject are that human beings are primarily social animals. We’re born into societies. We’re born into groups; and we are heavily socialized inside those groups, both by the family and the society around us in a really big way before our individuality gets to assert itself.
I think human beings are very tribal, to put it in simplistic terms from the get go - that’s not to say that you can’t have a lot of individualism but we’re primarily social animals.
Secondly, I think it’s near impossible to reach universal consensus about questions about the good life.
I agree with Mearsheimer that socialization is primary, that we are primarily social animals. That is the human condition, should be considered the preliminary outlook and matter of negotiation - failing that sufficiently, the individual and their truth will not even survive - they become, thereby, a moot point, not even there to argue how facts count.
However, I don’t think the tribal designation is good short hand - that may have been the practical social survival unit historically, but eventually it became too small and the national social scale has become the optimal unit of survival for various practical reasons.
But coming back to the second question, of whether common grounds and recognition of the shared good between people can be established, Mearsheimer frames it wrong in the sense of looking for any sort of elaborate, universal agreement between nations.
The goal, rather, should be more modest, namely of coordination, enough recognition of common interests, self and other national interests to be able to function non conflictually.
Coordination is geared toward facilitating groups functioning in their own interests with minimal conflict as opposed to trying to achieve thorough cooperation in details that do not bear on capacity for coordination or interfere with the common good.
I do need to call your attention to the fact that there is a constellation of right wingers out there who will seize upon ANYTHING, often superficial matters, in order to distract from what I have to say (which is a coherent and complete enough platform in advocacy of European peoples; I can defend and explain anything that I say).
These people are usually antagonistic to me and the ideas that I put forth because they are committed to Christianity, to Hitler, or to the inclusion of Jews in our advocacy group..and sometimes it is reactionary scientism and egotism that has them averse to the integration of ideas which are very necessary to understand for the good of our people.
Let me say briefly, that coordination of human and pervasive ecology is a large concept which I table. Conducted according to White Post Modern understanding, it is grounds that people of any thought and decency should be able to agree upon to facilitate the survival and coordination of our distinct peoples.
However, these right wing commitments, part and parcel of modernity, run rough shod over coordination to an extent that even the most ethnocentric of tradition could never be capable of.
The first project then, getting people, Europeans anyway, especially northern Europeans, perhaps, to appreciate our social nature from the onset is somewhat difficult for the reasons that:
A) They/we are evolved somewhat more individualistically as we were more evolved against the challenges of nature rather than the challenges of other groups forcing us to band together.
B) This has been fetishized in our modernist quest for pure objective warrant and the reward of its scientific/technological yields, its grandiose moral claims beyond utility to relative social group interests, either beyond nature or in laws thereof; also tending to be narcissistically extended beyond the boundaries, discrimination and prerogatives of other groups - modernity runs rough shod over coordination for its failure to recognize differences while traditional ethnocentrism at least recognized the concept of non-natives, outsiders.
C) However, this objectivity has been somewhat spurned on by Christianity, itself introduced by YKW while the purity quest was weaponized further against Whites by YKW - exacerbated Alinsky style, viz. White Americans being instigated to live up to the anti-social (anti White social) Cartesian purity of Lockeatine individual civil rights against “racism” - i.e., prejudiced against the relative group interests of Whites, with boundaries and discrimination thereupon for Whites.
Furthermore, the Abrahamic religions tend to run rough shod over coordination as they insist upon one god, and tend to be narcissistic, disregarding the significance of national differences
D) To make matters worse, whatever socially organizing and qualitative niche advocating correctives to this universalism and individualism that were introduced through (((academia))), tended to be made didactic for Whites by being exaggerated or misrepresented so that Whites would react against the very corrective that they needed for organization and defense of their social systemic homeostasis - this is where we are at now with all this railing against “the left” and “its failure to deal with reality” its “social justice warring” and various other straw man characterizations of THE Leftist, “his call for equality”, “fifty eight genders”, trannies reading to children in libraries and in paradox to the profoundly leftist call for unionization mislabled a call for “liberalism.” This “scourge of ‘identity politics’, when we should all be American.”
There was/is a call for liberalism within the nation, in the sense of doing away with the strict aristocratic class system that England has had since 1066, but the union of England does not mean giving up its borders, it means a union of the English people, whether they had been so called aristocracy or working class.
Bateson calls this “paradigmatic conservatism” - strong borders of the group, but relative freedom of individuality as facilitated by group security. He felt, as I do, that that’s the way it should be but that the reverse is more and more the case - group borders are being forced open to run wild and individualism is getting pegged, put in a straight jacket.
.....
Mearsheimer argues against trying to impose liberal democracy - a post modern turn away from universalism well advised - as it is necessarily a failed foreign policy against staunch nationalism, but he defends “liberal democracy” as a good way of life for The US.
However, he does not observe that The U.S. has failed democratic principle in important ways - notably in the open border/ opening of group boundaries policies in exploit of the “civic nationalist” concept that his YKW people have perpetrated through power niches in cahoots with liberals/right wingers to overturn democratic will (for closed borders) ..open borders and boundaries, weakening The United States nationhood and putting The U.S. effectively, on a trajectory of non-nationhood.
Note Mearsheimer’s use of the pejorative word “purportedly” when discussing nationalist claims to distinguish their people in ways (e.g., important biological differences) requiring a nation-state to protect their differences; i.e., that they are only “purportedly” different from other people in significant ways which require national boundaries/borders to protect them.
Nevertheless, in places, Mearsheimer makes the point, quite eloquently, that people are social, very profoundly social, from the start; thus making nationalism as it protects their sociality something they care about more deeply than liberal democracy. They will defend more ardently the security, social order and stability that provides for general fairness and just recourse against the secondary priorities, bullying ‘prerogatives’ of individual liberal choice over the security of group interests. Noting our deep social nature (including Europeans) from the start is correct, and is the point of correction that Whites need to understand and prioritize as opposed to right wing reaction (itself a species of liberalism) reaction to Jewish didacticism.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 17 September 2019 14:45.
The moment some fat liberal fuck, working for an (((NGO))), informs 82 African invaders that they will be allowed to disembark into European civilization.
Italy’s new globalist government invites NGOs to offload more migrants
A migrant transport ferry that has been continuously shuttling mostly military-aged migrant men into Europe this summer has announced that Italy’s new Liberal government has permitted it to offload 82 migrants at Lampedusa island.
Seventy percent of the individuals onboard the ship are military-aged men.
The ‘Ocean Viking’, a migrant transport vessel operated by the NGOs SOS Mediterranee and Doctors Without Borders, announced Saturday that Italian authorities gave the ship the go-ahead to begin sailing to Lampedusa island.
The ship reported that it had been six days since it had picked up this latest group of migrants before it was given permission to dock. 58 men, six women, and 17 minors are currently onboard the ship.
Previously, under the nationalist-populist Salvini government, Italy’s ports were closed to these NGO human transporters.
Now that leftist globalists are back in charge of Italy, the ports have seemingly been reopened to the third world masses.
Italy’s new government will once again begin allowing NGO human trafficker helpers to bring as many loads of mainly military-aged migrant man into Europe as possible.
Italy ‘puts an end’ to Salvini era as 82 rescued migrants allowed to dock
First time in 2019 a charity boat allowed to disembark on Italian soil
82 migrants rescued by the Ocean Viking will be allowed to dock on Italian island of Lampedusa ( AP Photo/Renata Brito )
A rescue ship carrying 82 refugees has received permission to dock on an Italian island, suggesting the hard line taken on such vessels by Matteo Salvini’s former government may be easing under the new coalition.
Ocean Viking’s crew said that after days of appealing for a port of safety, Italian authorities instructed them to sail to Lampedusa, a small Italian island between Malta and Tunisia.
It is the first time in 2019 that Italy’s government has granted a charity rescue boat permission to disembark.
Italy’s previous government, under a rigid anti-migrant policy led by League’s ethnonationalist leader Mr Salvini, banned charity rescue boats from entering Italy’s waters and disembarking migrants on the country’s shores.
But earlier this month, Mr Salvini lost power after he pulled out of a coalition with the Five Star Movement in the hope of triggering an early election he felt confident his party could win.
Instead the Five Star Movement formed an unlikely coalition with the Democratic Party, whose leader Nicola Zingaretti said in a clear dig at Mr Salvini: “We intend to put an end to the season of hatred, rancour and fear.”
Democratic Party leaders promised a fresh approach to migration, and have previously called for a more humane policy on migrant rescue boats, many of which have been forced to make illegal landings to ensure the safety of their passengers as a result of Mr Salvini’s policies.
In June the captain of Sea-Watch 3 was arrested after ramming a border police boat to dock at Lampedusa. In other cases the Italian authorities have seized ships and imposed heavy fines.
The 82 adults and children rescued by the Ocean Viking had been fleeing Libya, where refugees are currently sent in a deal agreed with the EU.
Charity SOS Mediterranée, which is running the ship alongside Doctors Without Borders (MSF) said it had been offered port of safety by Libya, but had refused it as it was “not a safe place for rescued people to be returned to”.
Describing those rescued on Ocean Viking, MSF Sea wrote on Twitter: “They tell our medics their skin was burned with melted plastic and they were beaten with sticks. These are just the physical injuries. There are even more horrific stories of abuse and exploitation that have left many with psychological wounds or trauma.”
The passengers had been rescued from two smaller boats – one a rubber dinghy without a working engine launched from Libya by human traffickers – on 8 and 10 September.
On Thursday, a 23-year-old Nigerian woman rescued by the Ocean Viking gave birth to a baby boy after being airlifted to Malta with her husband the previous day.
France and Germany have each agreed to take in a quarter of those onboard, and Italy 10 per cent, according to AFP.
Germany and other EU countries have advocated finding at least an interim solution to the impasse over rescues in the Mediterranean Sea, ahead of a meeting of the bloc’s interior ministers on 23 September in Malta.
Italy’s current and previous governments have insisted on more solidarity from fellow European Union nations, saying the migrants set out on their journeys seeking asylum or better economic conditions in Europe as a whole, not necessarily Italy.
Foreign minister Luigi Di Maio, who heads the Five Star Movement, said the Ocean Viking was only being given access to the southern island of Lampedusa because other European states had agreed to take in many of those on board.
“The new government has reopened its seaports [to migrants],” Mr Salvini said on Twitter on Saturday. “Italy returns to being Europe’s refugee camp. Abused by ministers, who hate the Italians.”
Mosley addresses the White Post Modern concern in the following quote.
It is an interesting question as to how to manage White post modernity, and one that is eminently worth commentary, would have commentary feedback if White Nationalism could muster a modicum of intellectual pragmatism.
For particular reasons (falling for deceptive language games profusely slathered over the public, stupidity perhaps), the struggle can’t get past reactionary mode yet..
Perhaps an age, a period, would not decide entirely what to maintain and what to leave behind, but clearly Mosley meant that there are times for a people to band together in defense, to drastically curtail the more experimental ventures in order to protect their inherited forms, and those ways which remain conducive.
The moment some fat liberal fuck, working for an (((NGO))), informs 82 African invaders that they will be allowed to disembark into European civilization.
Statue of Bandera in Western Ukraine.
Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Andrej Babis
