Majorityrights News > Category: European Union

READ MORE...

Visigrad Post, “Poles would rather leave the EU than take in Muslim immigrants”, 12 July 2017:

By Olivier Bault.

Poland – The question does not really arise, since the European treaties reserve the right for each country to accept immigrants of its choice on its soil, except for immigrants from other EU countries benefiting the freedom of movement. Nevertheless, in a country where, as in the whole of former Eastern Europe, membership in the European project is particularly high (although this does not prevent a critical view of the abuses of this project), it is Interesting to know what the Poles would choose if they had to choose between taking the immigrants under the compulsory relocation plan (from Italy and Greece) or leaving the EU. Or even, since there has been talk of abolishing European funds to recalcitrant countries, and in particular to Poland, the Czechia and Hungary, what would the Poles answer if they were given an ultimatum of that kind: if you do not take in immigrants, European subsidies will be abolished (which would be totally illegal under the treaties but has been suggested by high-ranking officials in Berlin, Paris and Brussels).

An IBRiS poll for the left wing liberal and pro-EU weekly Polityka was published on July 5, which answers these questions. Here are the results:

First question: “Should Poland refuse to accept refugees from Muslim countries even if this should lead to the loss of European funds? “

– YES: 56.5% (of which 48.6% were “yes” and 7.9% “rather yes”).
– NO: 40.4% (of which 31.4% were “no” and 9% “rather no”).
(Percentage of undecided: 3.1%)

Question 2: “Should Poland refuse to take in refugees from Muslim countries even if this should lead to the obligation to leave the European Union? “

– YES: 51.2% (of which 33.4% were “yes” and 17.8% “rather yes”).
– NO: 37.6% (27.6% of “no” and 10% of “rather no”).
(Percentage of undecided: 11.2%)

Precision: survey carried out in June on a sample of 1000 people.

It should be noted that the weekly Polityka, favorable to the reception of immigrants and to multiculturalism, tried to influence the answers by speaking of “refugees” rather than “asylum seekers”, since the immigrants concerned by the relocation program are people who have applied for asylum (which sooner or later all illegal immigrants do in order to avoid deportation) and not those who have obtained it. It can be assumed that without this manipulation there would have been an even greater proportion of “YES” for both questions.

This is the first time that a polling institute has been interested in the question of how far the Poles are prepared to go in their refusal of the immigration and multiculturalism model that Western Europe wants to impose on Central and Eastern Europe. A May survey by the OBOP institute (on a sample of 1004 people) and published by the public information channel TVP Info simply showed that 73% of Poles were against receiving Muslim refugees and immigrants (46 % absolutely opposed and 27% opposed) when asked: “Do you think Poland should welcome Muslim refugees and immigrants? ”

This opposition to the relocation of immigrants arriving illegally in Greece and Italy (even if it is with the help of European ships) is reflected in the popularity of PiS. After an empty run in early spring, the PiS reached 41% for the first time (against 26% for Donald Tusk’s Liberal party PO) in an IPSOS poll commissioned by the liberal-libertarian newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza at the end of June. This was when the European Commission had just announced the launch of a sanctions procedure against Poland, Czechia and Hungary for their refusal of the immigrant relocation program. Thus, if Brussels continues on this path, it could allow the conservative PiS party to win easily the next elections, possibly even with a constitutional majority. The PO suffers from its contradictory statements on the issue of the reception of illegal immigrants. This is most likely due to the commitment made in September 2015 by Prime Minister PO Ewa Kopacz (who replaced Donald Tusk after his departure to Brussels) to take 7,000 immigrants under the relocation program that the PiS, firmly opposed to this program, was able to obtain an absolute majority in the Polish parliament at the elections of October 25, 2015. It was the first time since the fall of communism in Poland that a party alone obtained an absolute majority in the parliament.

The government of Beata Szydło therefore has every interest in continuing to resist, especially as it has the support of most of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe on this subject and that it has received strong support from the United States with the speech pronounced by Donald Trump on July 6 in Warsaw. A speech where the American President called on the peoples of Europe to fight for their family, for their homeland, for their civilization and for God! This explains why the French mainstream media, in order to conceal this point, have preferred to relay the fake news of the Polish president’s wife refusing to shake President Trump’s hand.

Trump would try to stop election hacking by working with the man who has turned election hacking into an art form

Vox, 9 July 2017:  No, really.

“Trump wants to work with Putin to fight election hacking.”

President Donald Trump began his high-profile Europe trip by publicly questioning the US intelligence community’s unanimous conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. He used a one-one-one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to make clear Moscow wouldn’t be punished for the hack.

Then, on Sunday, Trump capped his time at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, with an announcement that he and Putin had agreed to create “an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things” will be prevented.

Trump, if he sticks with the plan, will be trying to stop election hacking by working with the man who has turned election hacking into an art form.

The announcement stunned lawmakers from both parties, with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham describing it as “pretty close” to the “dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” Graham also blasted Trump for his continued refusal to acknowledge the Russian hacking campaign.

“He is literally the only person I know of who doesn’t believe Russia attacked our election in 2016,” Graham said on NBC News’s Meet the Press.

With criticism pouring in, Trump tried to slightly distance himself from the idea late Sunday night, with a tweet that said the “fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn’t mean I think it can happen. It can’t-but a ceasefire can, and did!”

Trump’s quasi-denial aside, there was something genuinely startling about his first announcement. Trump left for the G20 summit with his presidency engulfed in an array of Russia-related scandals, including a criminal investigation into whether his campaign knowingly colluded with Kremlin hackers.

That meant there was one major question hanging over Trump as he prepared for his face-to-face meeting with Putin: whether he would hold the Russian leader accountable for directing what US spies describe as a systematic hacking campaign designed to hurt Hillary Clinton and help him win the White House.

On Sunday, Trump appeared to answer that question with a resounding “no.”

The summit was a win for Putin and a loss for everyone else.

READ MORE...

Euractiv, 30 June 2017:

“Malmström in Tokyo to clinch trade deal in time for G20.”

The European Union and Japan said on Tuesday (21 March) they intend to complete talks for a free trade agreement with Japan by the end of the year.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker dispatched the EU’s top trade officials to Tokyo Thursday (29 June) for crucial talks to seal a long-awaited deal with Japan.

After four years of talks, the two sides are working toward signing a deal at a G20 meeting in Hamburg next week, but Juncker said further work was needed.

“There are still a few sticking points. I have therefore sent the European agriculture commissioner and the trade commissioner to Japan,” Juncker said.

Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström and Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan will arrive on Friday (30 June) for talks with Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida.

Clinching a deal would be a victory for free-trade advocates after US President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership this year, dealing a possibly fatal blow to the mooted 12-nation deal.

Juncker said he wanted the negotiations to be finished before Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe holds talks with Juncker and EU President Donald Tusk in Brussels on July 6.

“The trade agreement with Japan, if it materialises, is important. And I am assuming that it will materialise,” Juncker said at a pre-G20 press conference with EU leaders in Berlin.

A relatively new site called The Old Continent: Your Eye on Europe might be of some limited utility to ethnonationalism, but requires significant caveat.

Its four listed “authors”, Timon Dias, Vincent van den Born, Frank Kasteel and Benjamin de Wolf all seem to be coming from some sort of military / policing background - and thus given to a platform that aspires to an objective presentation of criminality and its sources antagonistic to, where not outrightly designated the enemy of European civic union.

The site is performing a service in reporting on migrant rape crimes, a type of crime very very important to us and under-reported by the media to date; however, their purported objectivity fails to conceal a pandering to a prejudicial social classification that nevertheless remains salient despite the objectivist prejudice against discriminatory social classification - i.e. the classification female remains, irrespective of the prejudice against social classifications - in fact, emerges to impose itself as a category undeniably. And through the disingenuous objectivist premise, males, any males who are most “objectively” manly, are suitable to look after the interests of European union females:

Case in point - of the posts that Timon Dias has recently put up at the time of this writing, two of them are lauding the virtue and strength of black boxing champions, here and here, one post is some voodoo about a cloud that formed in the sky “miraculously” in the shape of Great Britain - “forming a sign from God for Brexit,” and finally he put up a story about a police car having been burned in Amsterdam by migrants. So, we may guess that Dias is black, part black, perhaps otherwise colored, but at least “philo-black”, i.e., not having European people’s subjective and relative interests as empirically grounded systemic wholes, close to heart.

The other writers seem to be more coherently focused on reporting migrant crime in Europe, particularly as it comes by way of Islam. In pursuing these crime stories as an objective matter, emphasizing previously under-reported incidents of migrant rape, they can supply facts that counter the heretofore mainstream media’s liberal prejudices against ethno-nationalism. Though “Old Continent” is the same as the legacy media in that it purports to be objective, it differs in its undeclared bias in this way of having a prejudicial eye on immigrant crime and particularly Islamic sourcing of that criminal behavior. Whereas the heretofore mainstream media has had a prejudicial eye against conservative reaction to liberal causes, such as problems perpetrated through immigration and Muslim people. This liberal prejudice and de-emphasis on the crimes aided and abetted by liberalism has left us acutely susceptible.

Thus, the site can be helpful to us for this “objective” angle in a few different ways. Firstly by directly providing us with factual events to help supply and support our own arguments and secondly their “objectivity” can help us indirectly to put together our arguments for ethnonationalism as a means of systemic accountability and protection - indirectly, for example, through their “objective” reporting on sources of “anti-Semitism” they can inadvertently call attention to Jewish culpability as Muslim “anti-Semitism” is “objectively” aired. That helps us, of course, because Jewish prejudice and culpability has been something that you cannot talk about in mainstream media as it has been under their sway, but the facts get out through a back door of “objectivity”, despite that, albeit indirectly.

Nevertheless, while the site is helpful to us in providing factual episodes to supply argument against liberal and Jewish media bias, it remains incumbent upon the wise, upon the ethnonationalist, to put together an assessment of patterns from these factual reports, to overcome the pseudo-objectivity that Jews, right-wingers and liberals have enforced upon us, and to warrant necessary prejudicial, discriminatory social classification, to marshal these patterns in our relative interests by contrast to show the way to our salvation - warrant that ethno-national activists can take up in the cause of its implementation.

Thus, where I have not published information from enemy sources or sites with platforms markedly different form ours for the fact that they didactically reveal their prejudices, then I have done so because they are presenting information that is basically factual enough such that much spin cannot be applied to mislead our audience. This would be the case, for example, when I publish material, e.g., from NPR, Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post   ..and where I reluctantly publish material from Russian Active Measures organs, RT and Sputnik.

Thus, I issue the caveat about this site, The Old Continent: Your Eye on Europe, that I cannot vouch that they are operating fundamentally in ethnonational interests, they seem rather to be operating as civic European unionists at best. At worst, and this is likely, they are of the counter-Jihadist mold. In fact, not only are they not likely to ask the “J.Q.”, their kosherness is evident in their focus on “extreme” Islam, their pro-Geert Wilders articles, e.g., here and here (as opposed to our stance on Wilders); the site’s apparent institutional sympathy, technical and informational backing, along with its verbal i.q. are still more kosher indication.

With that caveat, and given that Majority Rights will run information coming through sites with platforms a bit off, or even from opposing platforms, we might avail ourselves of facts that help our cause, where they supply them. Let’s try this story for starters…

...with one more preliminary remark: note the glib and inappropriate caption to the inappropriate image placed with the article - does that reflect subjective and heartfelt relative concern?

A picture of a blatantly unrelated Swedish police car. But man, aren’t they sweet

The Old Continent, Swedish migrant gang-rape: Court can’t establish which suspect did what. So they all walk free, avoiding deportation”, 15 June 2017:

On October 17, 2015, a woman in the Swedish town of Ludvika was raped outside of a restaurant in the center of town. The two men suspected of the crime were arrested on the 22nd of January 2016, followed a month later by a third man, suspected of aiding and abetting. All three of them were accused in court of rape. One of them confessed he was at the scene with the woman, but claimed that the other two were the ones to rape her.

They, in turn, said they were nowhere near the incident and didn’t even know anything had happened.

The Falu District Court, however, found the woman’s story to be very credible. Besides that, cigaret butts had been found on the site, which, according to the police, indicated hat the men had been present. The court, therefore, concluded that one of the men raped the woman, the other held her down and the third stood watch, or at the very least did nothing to prevent the crime. Consequently, all three of them would be sentenced for conspiring to jointly rape the woman. They received four years in prison, after which they were to be deported. They would also have to pay damages of 166.860 SEK (around €17.000) to the woman.

Prosecutor Sanna Gens chose to appeal the decision, seeking higher sentences. This backfired, when on appeal the defendants were acquitted entirely.

Although Court of Appeal agreed that the woman was forced into “sexual acts comparable to intercourse” and that the three men were on the scene with the woman, it did not follow District Court in concluding that this made them guilty of rape.

The case against the men was based heavily on the testimony of the victim. The Court of Appeal found that some elements of her story “appeared to be unclear and to some extent inconsistent with the other investigation.”

Because it is unclear exactly which suspect did what, reasoned the Court of Appeal, none of the men ought to have been convicted and all three of them “should therefore have been acquitted of all charges” as the Court deliberated. So out went the four-year prison sentences and the deportation order.

One of the men, a 25-year-old living in Ludvika, even received 140.000 SEK (around €14.000) compensation for time spent in prison, while another claimed compensation for his ‘suffering’ at the hands of the Attorney General, as well as loss of earnings to the amount of 37.600 SEK (slightly over €3850). This has been rejected, however, on the grounds that he was evidently present at the crime scene.

Backed by “Indian givers”, playing both sides and shifting the focus..

One take on the British election results -

UKIP / the banker class…

“Gave you Brexit” then dissolved themselves into Labour to take away Theresa May’s power to do anything about it..

..the objectivists told you that their invisible hand would work with you, naturally, to take care of Merkel’s migration assault on native Europeans… then their invisible hand played the other side of populism to leverage withdrawal of motions to exit from the common EU economic market - and with it, to withdraw an effective Brexit - by having voters distracted with a focus on Labour as the “savior of social services”...as if Theresa May was going to take that away.

..it seems that similar as with Trump and the Republicans in the US, that elite cadres are infusing whichever moribund party with angles of populist narratives that they can play in order to manipulate the electorate.

New Observer, ” Germany Spent €20 Billion on Invasion in 2016”, 24 May 2017:

The German government in 2016 provided €9.3 billion euros ($10.4 billion) to its sixteen states for assisting nonwhite invaders pretending to be refugees and a further €11 billion euros on welfare handouts in Third World countries in failed efforts to halt the flow.

     

The figures are from a federal government report approved and published by Chancellor Merkel’s cabinet on Wednesday.

A total of €5.5 billion was spent on invaders who were seeking asylum and were not yet recognized by the state. The funds spent within Germany also went towards an “integration package” that cost €2 billion, while €400 million was spent on shelter for “asylum seekers” and €350 million on “unaccompanied minors.”

The state of North Rhine-Westphalia received the most funding (€1.2 billion), followed by Bavaria (€860 million) and Baden-Württemberg (€728 million)

The Federal Ministry of Finance announced that €11 billion were spent directly on “additional measures to fight the causes of forced migration and displacement.”

These measures include welfare and handouts in African states, none of which has made the slightest impact on halting the sub-Saharan invasion of Europe.

In fact, if anything, it has speeded up the invasion, as the Africans see for themselves that the Europeans apparently have an endless flow of cash they can throw about—and white-provided cell phone technology allows them to tell their families back home how well they are living once in Europe.

New Observer, “Poland Tells EU: No, We Won’t Take Your Fake Refugees”, 22 May 2017:

The Polish government has told the European Union that they will not take in any of the “redistributed” nonwhites pretending to be refugees from Greece or Italy as that plan only aggravates the invasion problem and does not solve it.

       

Reacting to the EU’s threat last week that Poland—and Hungary—would face unspecified sanctions unless they agreed to take part in the “redistribution” of the fake refugees arriving in Italy and Greece, Polish Justice Minister Mariusz Blaszczak told a news conference in Brussels that his country’s “position is consistent and clear—we oppose relocation.”

Speaking after a meeting of EU justice and interior ministers, Blaszczak said that the redistribution arrangement “does not only fail to solve the migration problem, it aggravates it. It encourages more waves of migrants from Africa and Asia to come, which also provides a big source of income for smugglers and people traffickers.”

He went on to cite nonwhite terrorist attacks in France, Belgium, and Germany since late 2015 in which fake refugees had taken a leading role.

Red dots indicate terrorist attacks. While no red dots occur in Poland.

Under a plan agreed in 2015, the European Commission has demanded of EU member states that they all admit a quota from a total of 160,000 nonwhite invaders “stuck” in Italy and Greece.

Poland and Hungary alone have refused to admit any, citing security concerns and announcing their opposition to the mass Third World invasion of Europe.

Last week, the European Commission said it would decide next month on possible legal action against Poland and Hungary over the migration issue.

The process will likely end up in court and entail financial penalties in the form of the withdrawal of EU subsidies.