Majorityrights News > Category: European Union

Meet Norm Eisen: Legal Hatchet Man and Central Operative in the “Color Revolution” Against President Trump.

Revolver News 9 Sept 2020

In our report on Never Trump State Department official George Kent, Revolver News first drew attention to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United States government employs in so-called “Color Revolutions” and the coordinated efforts of government bureaucrats, NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.

Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George Soros linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened “war games” exercises suggesting the likelihood of a “contested election scenario,” and of ensuing chaos should President Trump refuse to leave office. We further showed how these “contested election” scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework sketched out Revolver News’ first installment in the Color Revolution series.

This third installment of Revolver News‘ series exposing the Color Revolution against Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the Transition Integrity Project’s biased election “war games” exercise—a man by the name of Norm Eisen.

Norm Eisen

As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against President Trump.

Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the United States – is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color revolution playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver’s thesis that the very same regime change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US Government in order to undermine or overthrow alleged “authoritarian” governments overseas, are running the very same playbook to overturn Trump’s 2016 victory and to pre-empt a repeat in 2020. To put it simply, what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but the same people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity against targets overseas—same people same playbook.

In Norm Eisen’s case, the “same people same playbook” refrain takes an arrestingly literal turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual, and conveniently titled it “The Playbook.”

Just what exactly is President Obama’s former White House Ethics Czar (yes, Norm Eisen was Obama’s ethics Czar), his longtime friend since Harvard Law School, who recently partook in war games to simulate overturning a Trump electoral victory, doing writing a detailed playbook on how to use a Color Revolution to overthrow governments? The story of Norm Eisen only gets more fascinating, outrageous, and indispensable to understanding the planned chaos unfolding before our eyes, leading up to what will perhaps be the most chaotic election in our nation’s recent history

.......

I’d Rather Have This Book Than The Atomic Bomb”

Before we can fully appreciate the significance of Norm Eisen’s Color Revolution manual “The Playbook,” we must contextualize this important book in relation to its place in Color Revolution literature.

READ MORE...

Visegrád Group – “Poland still remembers the decisive events of 1989 and always supports its neighbours. I have called for an extraordinary meeting of the European Council and strong reaction from the EU to what is happening in Belarus. We must support Belarusians together”, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki tweeted on August 11. Poland has clearly taken the lead in the Visegrád Group’s response, and also, with the support of its V4 partners and of the Baltic States, in the EU’s response. After some early hesitations, Hungary’s leaders have been most outspoken in their support for Poland’s efforts.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said on August 17 that he had held talks with his counterparts from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and also with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who had just spoken to Polish PM Morawiecki: “The power and importance of the Visegrád cooperation is evident again. We support the Polish position, especially regarding the large Polish community in Belarus”, Szijjártó wrote. Such support comes in spite of Hungary’s having better relations with Russia than Poland does, and at a time when Morawiecki has called on Russia not to intervene in Belarus and has presented a plan to support those who are protesting in that country. Morawiecki’s plan contains a pledge to make it possible for Belarusian university teachers and students to find places at Polish universities if they are expelled in Belarus due to their political activity, a promise to make it easier for Belarusians to get visas and work permits, a new mechanism to finance independent Belarusian media outlets, and new sources of financing for Polish NGOs which bring support to civil society in Belarus.

READ MORE...

Prosecutors in Sicily are seeking to charge Mr. Salvini with illegally detaining the migrants…

Italy Lawmakers Strip Matteo Salvini of Immunity in Migrant Ship Case

Wall Street Journal 30 July 2020:

The former interior minister faces a possible trial for refusing to let a ship carrying 150 migrants dock in Italy last year

MILAN—The Italian Senate voted to lift the immunity of Matteo Salvini, paving the way for the country’s former interior minister and the leader of the opposition to face a possible trial for refusing to let a ship carrying 150 migrants dock in Italy last year, and bringing the issue of migration to Europe back to the fore as the continent tries to stem the spread of the coronavirus.

EBL 31: Michel Foucault “The Birth of Biopolitics” (with Alex McNabb)

Thamster WitNat
2.96K subscribers

The EBL crew is joined by special guest Alex McNabb for a discussion of Michel Foucault’s 1978-79 series of lectures titled “The Birth of Biopolitics”. The crew examines facets of neoliberalism in the light of Foucault’s classic treatise

I stopped reading Foucault after the first book of his that I read, The History of Sexuality: The Use of Pleasure.

I was intrigued by the title, which indicated a classical Epicurean inquiry, a worthy avenue it seemed to me. However, except for the provocatively useful, but un-elaborated upon term, “bio-power”, there wasn’t much that i found to be of use in the text. On the contrary, I found him coming back repeatedly to the idea that (some) ancient Greeks (allegedly) considered homosexual pedophilia normal as transparent justification for his own predilection among this contextual relativization of history.

Even so, the term “bio-power” provides a clue as to an angle that can be used in inquiry and warning as to how it is that Africans can be a danger, i.e., not merely antagonistic, but having capacity, dangerous capability ...e.g., as a people some 200,000 years evolved prior to and thus compared to the precarious 41,000 years of European evolution.

There are several advantages to this angle which I will not elaborate on, but only add that it helps to mitigate against the Nazophiles who try to minimize black antagonism, looking upon themselves and their singular concern for the J.Q. as the ultimate in sophistication (and not naivete).

It also goes to show that sometimes a book a thousand pages long can be justified by one term or even the title.

While I had always meant to read Foucault’s most important books, Discipline and Punish and Birth of the Clinic for the provocative angles that Foucault takes on social problems, I never got around to it having been turned off enough by Foucault’s pedophilia apologetics and having read enough people quoting the texts to get the idea…

Josh Neal, Alex McNabb, Jefferson Lee and Thampster have a discussion in and about Foucault having apparently been provoked by the same term - bio-poltics/bio-power - and finding the same thing, the Foucault does not elaborate.

However, they have a decent discussion in and about what Foucault’s lecture on bio-politics does talk about - neo-liberalism…

....“the market (and its infamous ‘magic hand’) becomes the space of truth.”

....while the panel ventures some into Birth of The Clinic and Discipline and Punish.

Again, I’m not endorsing Foucault but he does provide provocative angles, prompting ways to think about power relations and their historical context in the determination of how social problems come to count.

Nativist Concern: One of the more talented of the somewhat recent arrivals to the J.Q.

Not highly original but pretty solid in his understanding of the J.Q. His third positionism does, unfortunately, provide backdoors for right wing elements to be used against nativist, ethnonational concerns.* It would be good to talk to him.

* For a classic example of his formulaic (and latently disastrous) worldview (106:34):

He exercises 2020 hindsight to suggest that World War II shouldn’t have been fought, but fails to consider that perhaps it was Hitler who should not have been attacking other nations. There are a host of right wing reactions vulnerable to misdirection with his presumption.

Ignoring the elephant in the room

Priti Patel today signalled a fresh crackdown on illegal migrants crossing the English Channel as she also vowed to tackle ‘vexatious’ asylum claims.

The Home Secretary conceded that there are currently higher numbers of people trying to cross the stretch of water.

But she said she is working to agree a scheme with Paris which would allow Britain to return illegal migrants to France after they have come ashore in the UK or if they are picked up while at sea.

She also vowed to focus Home Office efforts on combatting ‘vexatious methods’ and ‘vexatious claims’ around illegal immigration and asylum.

More…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8270077/Priti-Patel-signals-fresh-crackdown-illegal-migrants-crossing-English-Channel.html

Well, good luck with that. Patel, like every other politician is ignoring the elephant in the room - the UN Refugee Convention 1951 and the 1967 Protocol, to which both Britain and France are signatories. The Convention states…

The principle of non-refoulement [pushbacks] is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return a refugee against his or her will in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom

But France is a safe country so they are not genuine refugees ?

A refugee does not cease to be a refugee simply because they leave one host country to travel to another. A person is a refugee because of the lack of protection by their country of origin.

The Convention also states the basic rights of refugees as going well beyond ‘physical safety’ and include freedom of movement within the state, rights to work, access to housing, education, travel documents and more. The absence of ‘means of subsistence’ is justification for moving on and seeking a ‘decent human life’.

Illegal ?

The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalised for their illegal entry or stay. This recognises that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.

When it comes to refugee status feelings matter. Does the individual feel safe ? This isn’t lost on the likes of Amnesty International and other NGO’s known to tutor would be refugees on the right things to say and how to behave during assessments. Amnesty recorded the words of Josue, a 53 year old from Honduras, on the Mexico - Us border..

I don’t feel safe here. Anything can happen, because I’m Honduran. The police here are very corrupt and they steal the money of lots of people.

The 1951 Convention gives human rights lawyers the upper hand in any court case concerning asylum and refugee status, as in April of last year, when a US federal court issued a preliminary injunction banning the further implementation of Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ aka the ‘Migrant Protection Protocol’.

It’s hard to accept any politician or political party as being serious about ending the ‘refugee’ problem unless they first announce that they are withdrawing the country from the 1951 Convention. The current system only really benefits organized crime - people smugglers and lawyers - and is unfit for purpose. Free of the Convention, countries can decide for themselves whether or not to accept refugees and if they believe an individual or group of people are worthy of refugee status and are willing to provide sanctuary, they can cut out the middle men and go collect; which is something Britain did for the Ugandan Asians and Hong Kong Chinese.

- Report by mancinblack

European Outlook # 59 May 2020:

Except for the bit about Europe this is a good article. Federation would not destroy our sovereignty it would guarantee it, just as the rights of California or New York are protected by the federal constitution of the USA. - Bill Baillie

What is Real Nationalism? - James Caterill
From the BNP Website - https://bnp.org.uk/

The word ‘nation’ derives from the Latin for ‘to be born’, by which the Romans meant having roots in a common bloodline, rather than merely being born in the same place. The members of a nation invariably also share the same language, history, values and culture - including traditions and popular entertainment. Often they have the same religion or attitude to religion. These shared ancestral roots, experiences (good and bad) and aspirations combine to make the broad mass of people identify with the nation and with fellow members of it.

While the members of a nation often live under one government, the nation and the state are not the same thing. Nations can be subjected to foreign rule for centuries but still retain their identity and thirst for their freedom. The nation is what really matters, a living thing whose present owes both a debt to its past heroes and sacred duties to its as yet unborn future generations. The state is merely the form of government which the nation chooses, for the time being, as for it and for its future survival. In a healthy society without problems of external domination or an out-of-control elite, the form of government will reflect the traditions and the innate character of the people making the nation. The state and its personnel should serve the nation , not the other way round.

Shared culture is one of the most important building blocks of a strong nation, but it is not the only one. Modern scientific research is now identifying the specific genes for certain kinds of behaviour - conformism and individuality, for example. It shows that the proportion of such genes vary among different human populations. This doesn’t mean that any one group is ‘better’ than another, it does mean that human populations are different. The rebuttal of old Marxist egalitarianism proves that culture springs from the inborn nature of the people.  Put simply, when large numbers of Brits went to India, they didn’t become Indian, either in terms of ethnic identity or culture. And if large numbers of Africans come to Britain, breathing English air or even being born in England can never make them or their descendants English.

Even if a nation is composed of the descendants of immigrants (the USA, for example), why should that mean that it should accept further mass immigration on a scale that brings poverty and social collapse to many of its communities? In any case, it is not true in Britain. Again, the latest DNA science has buried the old liberal lies for good. We know that the vast majority of indigenous Brits can trace their ancestry directly back to the first post-Ice Age hunter gatherer settlers of our lands - 17,000 years ago. Further waves of genetically and culturally closely related tribes arrived in Neolithic times as farmers, and these were ‘topped up’ by further migration from mainland Europe, the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings for example. Tests on 9,000-year-old remains of Cheddar Man found that the local village school-teacher was his direct descendant. By comparison, the Maoris only reached New Zealand 700 years ago, yet no liberal would dare to sneer that they are “mere immigrants”.
Nationalists reject these double standards and insist that the British people are the indigenous, ‘first people’ of our islands and are entitled to recognition and respect as such.

The liberal-left talk a lot about diversity, but the mass immigration policies and One World ‘ideas’ they promote are in fact destroying human diversity. At present there are around 5,000 different national/linguistic/tribal groups in the world. This wonderful diversity is being wiped out so fast that scientists estimate that by the end of this century only 800 will survive. This catastrophic wipe-out of human bio-diversity can only be stopped if the free peoples of the world reject the Marxist propaganda and capitalist greed that together both favour mass migration and the destruction of separate nations through integration. All peoples have the right to control their geographical and cultural borders so as to preserve their identity. And the individuals and regimes running their states must either help this process or lose all legitimacy.

A nation can assimilate a limited number of immigrants. The more different they are and the larger their numbers, the harder this becomes. At a certain point - which can only be recognised if the host population are free to express their concerns openly - immigration stops being about the rights of immigrants and becomes about the colonisation and dispossession of the indigenous community. Even if integration is possible, it is only acceptable if the original inhabitants welcome it without brainwashing or coercion, and it should never be on such a scale as to fundamentally change the identity and core characteristics of the nation in question. Genocide - the destruction of a people - does not have to involve mass murder. Its evil can also be accomplished through propaganda and social conditioning to encourage different populations to mix. Tyrannical regimes have done this for centuries, knowing that rootless and divided populations are easier to control and exploit than proud and homogenous nations.

What’s so special about Britain and the British? First, we have the same rights to our land, and to self-government within it, as every other indigenous people on Earth. Second, the genius of the closely related British family of nations who are indigenous to our islands has made an absolutely unique contribution to the development of human freedom, happiness and material comfort of the whole world. The rule of law, free speech and parliamentary democracy, the Industrial revolution, the computer age, some of the world’s finest literature, so many great sports - these and many other things are our special gift to Mankind. Why should a people who have achieved so much, and who still have so much to achieve, meekly accept their dispossession and destruction by an elite that has no democratic mandate for such drastic change? The free peoples of Britain have never consented either to mass immigration or to the snuffing out of our right to self-determination in a federal Europe. That is why resistance to those evils is not only a matter of right, but of duty to our nation. Our duty - and your duty - not only on behalf of those alive today, but for the British heroes of the past and for those yet to be born.