Majorityrights News > Category: Population

‘Complete, total surrender’: Why Trump waved the white flag

Politico, 25 Jan 2019:

The sudden erosion of support from Senate Republicans ultimately forced Trump’s hand. “President Donald Trump touted GOP unity for 33 days of a partial government shutdown. But by the 34th day, it was clearly gone — and so was the shutdown by the end of the 35th.

Senate Republicans had finally had it and were struggling to continue to defend the president’s position and heap blame on the Democrats. Perhaps no one illustrated that dynamic more than Sen. Rob Portman.

The Ohio Republican, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), had spent more than two weeks pushing to reopen the government and then negotiate on border security, only to face repeated rejection by the president and Vice President Mike Pence. So when two votes came before the Senate this week, one on Trump’s plan, the other on a stopgap with no new guaranteed wall money, Portman nearly made a rare break with his party.

“I considered it, yes,” he said on Friday after the president finally caved on his position that the government would only reopen with a down payment on his wall.

Portman and most Republicans ultimately stuck with Trump after Pence’s pleas for unity. A sustained rebellion against Trump on Thursday, Portman argued, would mean the government “would not be open right now,“ because Trump would simply veto a Democrat-backed bill. “It would have been a real problem.” …”

Occidental Observer’s Hunter Wallace laments:

So, the partial government shutdown is finally coming to an end.

Trump has been humiliated by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Senate Republicans caved and that forced Trump to cave. He isn’t getting any funding for his wall. The whole episode was nothing but a waste of time to look like he was fighting for the wall funding after two years of avoiding the issue.

I increasingly think it is a waste of time to sit here, day after day, following the news cycle to document the ongoing failure of Trump and American conservatism. It just discourages me from writing. I’ve been doing it for two years now and have grown tired of it. I will probably end up pivoting to history for a while.

Propertarianism is an idea for a system of government devised and promoted by Doolittle and Mark to secure the interests of peoples where the U.S. Constitution has left vagueries to be exploited by the parasitic.

From what I’ve heard so far, most of it can be consonant with an ethnonational Left, White or otherwise.

The platform claims that it will be able to gain the adherence of Whites who do not heavily identify as White, either don’t care much, or emphatically do not want to be identified as racist. They maintain that as the rules-based platform provides the only guarantee of their interests that it will follow that a large percentage of these Whites will fall into the same camp as Whites whose main interest is maintaining their genetic kind. More, that this program will facilitate a groundswell to allow for revolutionary victory for racialists as it forces the right identifying elements among the military, police and citizenry to stand down when called upon to take arms against their own kind; and rather join with them.

Here is where the parasite may be rubbing its hands together unbeknownst to their “foolproof” anti-parasitism.

1) They insist on identifying as “The Right”, just as king parasite wants them to do at this point, now that it has vacuumed up all the money and assets that it possibly can.

2) With that, encourages misdefinitions of “Left/Right” as Mark promotes - “The Left is irrational, a creature that can’t be talked to.”

Or is it that they don’t want you to talk to me? Try me.

Try me. You won’t because your Jewish masters and fellow parasites told you not to.

.. “it seeks social justice… how laughable! ... has compassion for marginals - how quaint and effeminate .. the left is trying to deny us our nature as assholes.”

Who told you the Left is womanly and irrational?

The same people who pander to White girl’s puerile predilection and incitement; who want your legacy to become Mulatto so you can be more “manly”, hyper-assertive, non-reflective and unreasonable like a black?

How is it irrational to analogize national and group boundaries to unionization? Where does this unionization and accountability (of elites, marginals, rank and file) toward the end of social justice and group homeostasis need to say that “equality” is the goal and not symbiosis and homeostasis?; or that self interest is necessarily at odds if accountability to group interests exists as well? Does not accountability address the issue of “parasitism?”

Who told you that the left represents parasitism whereas the right does not?

Most people would say that capitalism, mega-wealth, investment beyond need, interest bearing loans, rent, etc, are right wing - no?

Who told you that social constuctionism does not deal with reality?

According to its tenets, you are free to come here in comments and help to construct our platform - help us deal with “reality” - in fact, that is the radical reality of how knowledge is generated.

Who told you to stay away? To see the “Left” as such a word that would have you running like a cockroach from the light?

Who supplied you with these stereotyped characterizations of an anthropmorphized “left” that is just so irrational that it can’t understand why Jews and these sociopathic Whites (that you want to get on your side on the sly), who’ve sold-out their race for their own selfish interests, are on top.

Who prevented you from joining me in this moribund White Left ethnonational position - seeing it as an opportunity to define it for ourselves, not as your masters see fit?

Such that it can provide for private property, wealth and a great deal of individual liberty, while maintaining accountability to our interests, bounds and borders?

Who told you that social constructonism was phony baloney?

I’m going to pretend for a moment that you will do the normal thing and join me as I watch this video; we’ll see what we can use, what may be off the mark - you will help in that corrective process, won’t you? Or will you refuse joint construction because your (((masters))) told you how to define what this left ethnonational platform is about and because those Whites who’ve bought their (((definitional package for right and left))) are too committed to their deal?

You see, there are all kinds of solutions to bring about borders and systems to run once borders are instituted. I never claimed to have all details figured out and in fact, am given to the reality of social constructionism, that that is simply not how knowledge is generated and disseminated - if people think, as Bowery apparently does, that I should come up with a system of “operationalization” or be ignored, then that is not reasonable. Someone else, if not him, is welcome to propose adjustments. These libertarians say to me, “that may be what should happen, but what do people actually do?

Well, I don’t know, what did the Jews tell you about how the right deals with reality, Stoicism, Jesus and all? That it provides the promise of perfect union with god after life….

Stoicism, it shows the way (doesn’t cause us to blunt our sensible interests) whereas Epicureanism’s “materialism’... oh, you don’t want that pursuit of pleasure, you don’t want that…there’s nothing after your material life, except maybe your children and kinfolk’s genetics…

Pleasure?! Ha ha ha! Don’t you know that shit has a divine place in the universe? Makes us perfect shit eaters, while your Epicurean palate, it pretends that it will get off, find the highest pleasure in figuring out how life is best conducted….

“The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” - Kenneth Burke

In fact, Epicureanism promotes a hierarchicization of “pleasures” (contemplation being highest).... and our inextricable involvement in empirical reality which provides for accountability, e.g., to the materiality of our forebears and genetic legacy.

Ok, so I’ll watch this in my material reality; maybe you’ll join me in reflection upon it, probably you won’t… your gawd told you not to.

Wind turbines in Nordhorn, Germany. (M. Meissner/AP)

The Financial Secret Behind Germany’s Green Energy Revolution

TruthDig.Org, 24 Jan 2019:

The “Green New Deal” endorsed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D.-N.Y., and more than 40 other House members has been criticized as imposing a too-heavy burden on the rich and upper-middle-class taxpayers who will have to pay for it. However, taxing the rich is not what the Green New Deal resolution proposes. It says funding would come primarily from certain public agencies, including the U.S. Federal Reserve and “a new public bank or system of regional and specialized public banks.”

Funding through the Federal Reserve may be controversial, but establishing a national public infrastructure and development bank should be a no-brainer. The real question is why we don’t already have one, as do China, Germany and other countries that are running circles around us in infrastructure development. Many European, Asian and Latin American countries have their own national development banks, as well as belong to bilateral or multinational development institutions that are jointly owned by multiple governments. Unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, which considers itself “independent” of government, national development banks are wholly owned by their governments and carry out public development policies.

China not only has its own China Infrastructure Bank but has established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which counts many Asian and Middle Eastern countries in its membership, including Australia, New Zealand and Saudi Arabia. Both banks are helping to fund China’s trillion-dollar “One Belt One Road” infrastructure initiative. China is so far ahead of the United States in building infrastructure that Dan Slane, a former adviser on President Donald Trump’s transition team, has warned, “If we don’t get our act together very soon, we should all be brushing up on our Mandarin.”

The leader in renewable energy, however, is Germany, called “the world’s first major renewable energy economy.” Germany has a public sector development bank called KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau or “Reconstruction Credit Institute”), which is even larger than the World Bank. Along with Germany’s nonprofit Sparkassen banks, KfW has largely funded the country’s green energy revolution.

Unlike private commercial banks, KfW does not have to focus on maximizing short-term profits for its shareholders while turning a blind eye to external costs, including those imposed on the environment. The bank has been free to support the energy revolution by funding major investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Its fossil fuel investments are close to zero. One of the key features of KfW, as with other development banks, is that much of its lending is driven in a strategic direction determined by the national government. Its key role in the green energy revolution has been played within a public policy framework under Germany’s renewable energy legislation, including policy measures that have made investment in renewables commercially attractive.

KfW is one of the world’s largest development banks, with assets totaling $566.5 billion as of December 2017. Ironically, the initial funding for its capitalization came from the United States, through the Marshall Plan in 1948. Why didn’t we fund a similar bank for ourselves? Simply because powerful Wall Street interests did not want the competition from a government-owned bank that could make below-market loans for infrastructure and development. Major U.S. investors today prefer funding infrastructure through public-private partnerships, in which private partners can reap the profits while losses are imposed on local governments.

KfW and Germany’s Energy Revolution

Renewable energy in Germany is mainly based on wind, solar and biomass. Renewables generated 41 percent of the country’s electricity in 2017, up from just 6 percent in 2000; and public banks provided over 72 percent of the financing for this transition. In 2007-09, KfW funded all of Germany’s investment in Solar Photovoltaic. After that, Solar PV was introduced nationwide on a major scale. This is the sort of catalytic role that development banks can play—kickstarting a major structural transformation by funding and showcasing new technologies and sectors.

KfW is not only one of the biggest financial institutions but has been ranked one of the two safest banks in the world. (The other, Switzerland’s Zurich Cantonal Bank, is also publicly owned.) KfW sports triple-A ratings from all three major rating agencies—Fitch, Standard and Poor’s, and Moody’s. The bank benefits from these top ratings and the statutory guarantee of the German government, which allow it to issue bonds on very favorable terms and therefore to lend on favorable terms, backing its loans with the bonds.

KfW does not work through public-private partnerships, and it does not trade in derivatives and other complex financial products. It relies on traditional lending and grants. The borrower is responsible for loan repayment. Private investors can participate, but not as shareholders or public-private partners. Rather, they can invest in “Green Bonds,” which are as safe and liquid as other government bonds and are prized for their green earmarking. The first “Green Bond—Made by KfW” was issued in 2014 with a volume of $1.7 billion and a maturity of five years. It was the largest Green Bond ever at the time of issuance and generated so much interest that the order book rapidly grew to $3.02 billion, although the bonds paid an annual coupon of only 0.375 percent. By 2017, the issue volume of KfW Green Bonds reached $4.21 billion.

Investors benefit from the high credit and sustainability ratings of KfW, the liquidity of its bonds, and the opportunity to support climate and environmental protection. For large institutional investors with funds that exceed the government deposit insurance limit, Green Bonds are the equivalent of savings accounts—a safe place to park their money that provides a modest interest. Green Bonds also appeal to “socially responsible” investors, who have the assurance with these simple and transparent bonds that their money is going where they want it to. The bonds are financed by KfW from the proceeds of its loans, which are also in high demand due to their low interest rates, which the bank can offer because its high ratings allow it to cheaply mobilize funds from capital markets and its public policy-oriented loans qualify it for targeted subsidies.

Roosevelt’s Development Bank: The Reconstruction Finance Corporation

KfW’s role in implementing government policy parallels that of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in funding the New Deal in the 1930s. At that time, U.S. banks were bankrupt and incapable of financing the country’s recovery. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to set up a system of 12 public “industrial banks” through the Federal Reserve, but the measure failed. Roosevelt then made an end run around his opponents by using the RFC that had been set up earlier by President Herbert Hoover, expanding it to address the nation’s financing needs.

The RFC Act of 1932 provided the RFC with capital stock of $500 million and the authority to extend credit up to $1.5 billion (subsequently increased several times). With those resources, from 1932 to 1957 the RFC loaned or invested more than $40 billion. As with KfW’s loans, its funding source was the sale of bonds, mostly to the Treasury itself. Proceeds from the loans repaid the bonds, leaving the RFC with a net profit. The RFC financed roads, bridges, dams, post offices, universities, electrical power, mortgages, farms and much more; it funded all of this while generating income for the government.

The RFC was so successful that it became America’s largest corporation and the world’s largest banking organization. Its success, however, may have been its nemesis. Without the emergencies of depression and war, it was a too-powerful competitor of the private banking establishment; and in 1957, it was disbanded under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. That’s how the United States was left without a development bank at the same time Germany and other countries were hitting the ground running with theirs.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including “Web of Debt” and “The Public Bank Solution.”

Today some U.S. states have infrastructure and development banks, including California, but their reach is very small. One way they could be expanded to meet state infrastructure needs would be to turn them into depositories for state and municipal revenue. Rather than lending their capital directly in a revolving fund, this would allow them to leverage their capital into 10 times that sum in loans, as all depository banks are able to do, as I’ve previously explained.

The most profitable and efficient way for national and local governments to finance public infrastructure and development is with their own banks, as the impressive track records of KfW and other national development banks have shown. The RFC showed what could be done even by a country that was technically bankrupt, simply by mobilizing its own resources through a publicly owned financial institution. We need to resurrect that public funding engine today, not only to address the national and global crises we are facing now but for the ongoing development the country needs in order to manifest its true potential.

Poland, Hungary and France: A Common Cause

By Antoni Trzmiel.

Visigrad Post, Jan 2019:

Poland – We publish here the translation of Antoni Trzmiel’s editorial about the partnership we started with them.

The dorzeczy.pl website, belonging to the Polish weekly Do Rzeczy, has begun cooperation with the Visegrád Post and with the French independent Web channel TV Libertés.

Let us reclaim our own story!

Journalists from these media were in Poland during the days of national celebration of our regained independence. They were preparing a TV documentary for their viewers. Their perspective is not our perspective. But while it may not be rosy, their narrative differs vastly from the infamous description of “thousands of fascists, neo-Nazis and white supremacists marching 300 km from Auschwitz”.

These were the words of a prominent European politician, Guy Verhofstadt, the leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament. They show how much we have to do to stop such statements being made, including – as was the case here – during a debate on the rule of law in Poland. There is just one way to make this happen, and it is not by prohibiting such lies in Polish law, as such a law could not be enforced abroad anyway. Indeed it is not only Poles that should be outraged, but above all those who vote for the people making such ludicrous claims: French, Dutch, Slovakians, Czechs, Hungarians, Greeks, etc. But for this to happen, first they need to know when their representatives are telling them gross lies.

Conversations with my fellow journalists shed light on many bad things that are happening in their countries, which one would not necessarily notice when travelling there on holiday or for work. This is especially true in the field of freedom of expression. We will be writing about such matters on dorzeczy.pl.

Was it worthwhile for David to fight Goliath?

We have decided to cooperate on a permanent basis. Let’s be honest: from a business point of view, this will bring no benefit. Translations, travel and the time spent are all quite significant costs for independent media, which are low-budget non-profit entities. But we believe that if our journalists prepare more materials about the situation in Poland, there is a chance that in some of the media they know and trust, the Hungarians, Belgians and French will get a different picture than the one reflected by the liberal newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza.

For the time being, there is a huge imbalance in forces, resources, and decades of cooperation. They are tied by common interests, while we share our opposition to the current situation (even though much separates us). True, it is a struggle of David against Goliath. However, cheered by that biblical story, we believe in the victory of truth. Let us be frank: there is a long way to go. But, as the Chinese say, a journey begins with a single step.

On November 11 we took that first step

In our case it consisted of three interviews conducted for our media on the eve of November 11. They were published simultaneously on dorzeczy.pl, visegradpost.com and http://www.tvlibertes.com on the following days.

Our journalist Karol Gac spoke with deputy prime minister Jarosław Gowin. Olivier Bault, a writing editor of Do Rzeczy and correspondent of French alternative media in Poland, questioned the Deputy Speaker of the Sejm Ryszard Terlecki, as well as MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski.

Thus, Polish readers and viewers had the opportunity to hear what these politicians wanted to tell people from other countries. This is important. After all, it has become clear lately that they are not heard often enough abroad, given that representatives of foreign voters proved able to compel those who represent a majority of Polish voters to change the law [as was the case with the retirement age of judges sitting in the Polish Supreme Court and Higher Administrative Court].

Our journalists too will regularly prepare materials for what we are confident will be a growing number of partners. At the same time, we will publish materials prepared by our partners on dorzeczy.pl. It is indeed not a normal situation that we know more about Bollywood or Hollywood stars than about the real life of Slovaks or the French. And, as the above examples show, this has a real impact on our own lives.

Antoni Trzmiel is a journalist working for Polish public television (TVP) and is also the head of dorzeczy.pl, the website of the Polish conservative weekly news magazine Do Rzeczy.

Opinion piece originally published in Polish on the Do Rzeczy website. Translated to English by Olivier Bault.

Péter Szijjártó, Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

VOICE OF EUROPE, 21 JAN 2019:

Hungary: we will prevent Brussels to implement the UN Migration Pact

Brussels is doing all it can to implement the United Nations Global Migration Pact, Peter Szijjarto, the foreign minister of Hungary, told public television. “But we will prevent this,” he said.

In Spain last year the number of illegal border crossings doubled, Szijjarto told current affairs channel M1. In Turkey, 50 percent more illegal migrants were apprehended than in 2017 and the number of arrivals in Cyprus has doubled. Further, the number of arrivals on the Greek-Turkish land border is rising steadily, he added.

The UN migration pact has put wind in the sails of global migration as it focuses on managing rather than stopping migration, he said. He noted that 40 UN members had not even voted for the compact and so, he argued, it cannot serve as a genuine international reference point. Officials in Brussels made the compact’s adoption a matter of prestige even when Hungary made clear at the outset that there was no single European position to be represented, he said.

Now they are doing everything they can in Brussels to lead the implementation of the global migration package, he said. “We will of course prevent this.” Szijjarto noted that 9 EU member states, or one-third, did not vote for the package. “So it’s not about European countries wanting to implement a global migration package as a united front,” the minister said.

Meanwhile Szijjarto, in a separate interview to Kossuth Radio, noted that the Austria-Hungary border legally can be crossed at 55 points. Fully 19 are major crossings while 36 are smaller, he noted, adding that 10 are subject to restrictions by Austria. Restrictions on crossings now have been lifted at 4 locations and 6 are still in place at the request of the Austrian mayors in question, but only one is paved.

Jerusalem Post, “U.S. SIGNS ELIE WIESEL GENOCIDE PREVENTION ACT INTO LAW”, 16 Jan 2019:

The law is intended to prevent genocide and other atrocities that threaten national and international security.

Elie Wiesel speaks at a World War II tribute. (photo credit: REUTERS)

US President Donald Trump signed a law on Monday declaring that the prevention of genocide and other atrocities is “a core national security interest” of the United States, adding that it is also “a core moral responsibility.”

The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, named for the world-renown Holocaust survivor and famed author, was signed into law by Trump after it passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in December.

The law is intended to prevent genocide and other atrocities “which threaten national and international security, by enhancing United States government capacities to prevent, mitigate, and respond to such crises.”

The new law obligates the US to mitigate threats to its national “security by addressing the root causes of insecurity and violent conflict to prevent the mass slaughter of civilians; conditions that prompt internal displacement and the flow of refugees across borders; and other violence that wreaks havoc on regional stability and livelihoods.”

The US will enhance its capacity to “identify, prevent, address, and respond to the drivers of atrocities and violent conflict” as part of its “humanitarian, development and strategic interests.” It also entails the establishment a Complex Crisis Fund that will deal with strengthening local civil society, such as human rights groups, and nonprofit organizations that are already on the ground, working to thwart and deal with atrocities as they occur.

According to the new law, “Appropriate officials of the US government” must consult at least twice a year with representatives of nongovernmental organizations and civil society actors in an effort to “enhance the capacity of the US” to identify the conditions that could lead to such atrocities, “including strengthening the role of international organizations and international financial institutions in conflict prevention, mitigation and response.”

It also “encourages” the National Intelligence director to give a detailed review of countries and regions at risk of genocide in annual testimony to Congress, “including most likely pathways to violence, specific risk factors, potential perpetrators, and at-risk target groups.”

The secretary of state is also expected to write an evaluation report every three years.

Speaking in December, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ben Cardin said that “America’s strength around the world is rooted in our values.”

“It is in our national interest to ensure that the United States utilizes the full arsenal of diplomatic, economic and legal tools to take meaningful action before atrocities occur,” said Cardin. “Earlier this month, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum identified Burmese military actions against the Rohingya as genocide. From Burma to Iraq, South Sudan to Syria, atrocity crimes tragically persist all around the globe.” He added that the Prevention Act will help ensure that the United States does a better job of responding earlier and more effectively to these heinous crimes. “I urge our House colleagues to pass this landmark legislation before the 115th Congress adjourns.”

Sen. Todd Young, an original co-sponsor of the law and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, explained that the US has a moral and strategic imperative to help prevent and respond to acts of genocide and other mass atrocities, and this legislation would ensure that the US government is better prepared to fulfill this serious responsibility.

Prior to the signing, Sara Bloomfield, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum director, said that “senators Young and Cardin’s leadership on the bill honors Elie Wiesel’s vision for the museum as a living memorial that would help save victims of future genocides and in doing so honor the victims of the Holocaust.

“This legislation is an important effort toward developing a bipartisan congressional blueprint for making ‘never again’ real by taking practical steps to mitigate the systematic persecution of vulnerable groups,” she said.

BBC, “May’s government survives no confidence vote”, 17 Jan 2019.

BBC, “Brexit: Theresa May says MPs must ‘work together’ to deliver Brexit”, 17 Jan 2019.

May loses Brexit vote - what happens next?