Majorityrights News > Category: Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity

New Observer, “Orban: Hungary is a “Refuge for Europeans,” and Uses Tax Money to Boost Birthrate”, 24 July 2017:

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has announced that his nation will “remain a place where Western European Christians will always be able to find security”—and that his government is using taxes on multinational companies to fund social policies to spur families to have more children.

Speaking at a cultural festival in Baile Tusnad, Romania, Orbán also said that the European Union, together with Open Society founder—and Hungarian Jew—George Soros was seeking a “new, mixed, Muslimized Europe.”

He went on to say that Hungary’s border fences, supported by other Central European countries, “will block the EU-Soros effort to increase Muslim migration into Europe.”

While Hungary opposed taking in migrants “who could change the country’s cultural identity,” Orban said under his leadership, Hungary would remain a place where “Western European Christians will always be able to find security.”

He also said that Hungary’s opposition parties were no match for his government, and that he would win the next election in April 2018.

“In the upcoming campaign, first of all we have to confront external powers,” Orban said.

“We have to stand our ground against the Soros mafia network and the Brussels bureaucrats. And, during the next nine months, we will have to fight against the media they operate.”

Recent legislation in Hungary seeks to close or expel the Budapest-based Central European University, founded by Soros in 1991. There are also new rules about non-governmental organizations funded at least partly from abroad.

Orban reiterated his charge that Soros-funded NGOs want to weaken Hungary’s security with their advocacy for asylum-seekers and said Hungary had managed to stop the “migrant invasion” with razor-wire fences on its borders with Serbia and Croatia.

In the speech, broadcast by Hungarian state media, Orban repeated his claim that the EU leadership was encroaching on member states’ rights and trying to apply policies, such as increased immigration, which he said were opposed by most Europeans.

Orban said Poland, which is under pressure from the EU because of attempts to put its Supreme Court under political control, had replaced Hungary as the target of the EU’s “chief inquisitor,” whom he identified as European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans.

“The main target of the inquisition, the example of national governance to be weakened, destroyed and broken is Poland,” Orban said, vowing to defend the Polish government. “Hungary will use every legal possibility in the European Union to be in solidarity with the Poles.”

Finally, Orban said Hungary’s low birth rate made the country an “endangered species,” and that the government was using taxes on multinational companies to fund social policies that would spur families to have more children.

However much of a taboo one is breaking by saying it, there is no cultural identity in a population without a stable ethnic composition

Visigrad Post, “Full speech of V. Orbán : Will Europe belong to Europeans?” 24 July 2017:

Viktor Orbán’s speech at the 28th Bálványos Summer Open University and Student Camp, 22 July 2017, Tusnádfürdő (Băile Tuşnad, Romania)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: “First of all, I’d like to remind everyone that we started a process of collective thinking 27 years ago in Bálványosfürdő, a few kilometres from here. That is where we came to a realisation. Just think back: at that time, at the beginning of the nineties, most people – not only in Hungary, but also across the whole of Central Europe – thought that full assimilation into the Western world was just opening up to us again. The obvious approach was adjustment to that world: to in a way shed our skin and grow a new, fashionable Western skin. From this it followed that in our politics we would simply need to copy what they were doing in the West. Back then – 27 years, 28 years ago – we came together here, and we thought that we freedom fighters living on this side of the Iron Curtain could also have something valuable to say to a Europe which had by then been living in peace, freedom and prosperity for forty years. Back then we weren’t surrounded by television cameras, and our words commanded no attention whatsoever.

Now, however, they do. And if I were to name the most important event, the most important Hungarian and European event of the past year – the twelve months since our last meeting – I would say that it is the strengthening of the Visegrád Four. Although there was a presidential election in the United States, and not so long ago the French presidential and parliamentary elections swept away the entire French party system – which are both important things – I’m convinced that the most important development of the past year has been the Visegrád Four cooperation becoming closer than ever before. We can say that Warsaw, Prague, Bratislava and Budapest are speaking with one voice. This is a great achievement, as these are countries which are very different in their characters. Here we have the enthusiastic Poles, the ever-cautious Czechs, the sober Slovaks and the romantic Hungarians; and yet we are able to speak the same language. We can be truly proud of this.

It is customary for the Open University presentations to seek to give an account of the extent of change over the past year, also in a broader civilisational context. Certainly not everyone remembers that in 2009, after his election, President Obama made his first important speech abroad in the city of Cairo. This year the newly-elected US president delivered his first important speech abroad in the city of Warsaw. To illustrate the extent of the changes, it’s enough to quote a few sentences from the speech made by the American president in Warsaw. I’ll quote from it now:

“We have to remember […] that the defence of the West ultimately rests not only on means, but also on the will of its people to prevail and be successful and get what you have to have. […] Our own fight for the West does not begin on the battlefield. It begins with our minds, our wills and our souls. […] Our freedom, our civilization and our survival depend on these bonds of history, culture, and memory.”

He then went on to say: “So together let us all fight like the Poles: for family, for freedom, for country and for God.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

These words would have been inconceivable anywhere in the Western world two years ago. This is the extent of the change that is taking place around us. This, perhaps, is the point at which I should greet Piotr Naimski and the Polish delegation led by him. He is the President of the Hungarian-Polish Parliamentary Group in Warsaw. Welcome, Dear Polish Friends.

READ MORE...

READ MORE...

TVN24, “Permanent presence of American troops in Poland is our aim”, 5 July 2017:

“Security understood very broadly – military, energy security – will be the most important issue for President Andrzej Duda during his talks with U.S. President Donald Trump,” announced President’s spokesman Krzysztof Łapiński in “Fakty z Zagranicy”, TVN24 BiS. The minister was asked what the President’s plans were for his talks with the American President, what would be the most important issue for him, what he would like to hear from Trump or what kind of deal he would like to do with him.

“We know roughly what topics the talks will touch on. It is no secret that security [will be the key topic], security understood very broadly,” replied Łapiński. “On the one hand, military security, the presence of American troops in Poland, NATO, and on the other hand, energy security,” he explained.

“Security guarantees” “So, as of today, American soldiers are stationed [in Poland], and we are hoping that their presence will be permanent. It is important that these soldiers – whether they will be rotated once a year or once every two years, or three, this is less important. What is important is that American troops will be present in Poland, because this constitutes a security guarantee,” added Łapiński.

Asked how long the two Presidents’ tête-à-tête would be, he answered that it was expected to last about 25 minutes. Trump and Russia (http://www.tvn24.pl)

On Tuesday, in an interview for the wyborcza.pl website, Łapiński was asked if President Andrzej Duda hoped Trump would confirm the U.S. commitment to NATO during his visit to Poland. “Every day we see that President Trump and the United States confirm their commitment to the alliance, because American soldiers, who came here, are still stationed on the Polish soil. President Trump has never issued any signal or indication to justify any doubts, he never said that the presence of American soldiers in Poland was a bad idea,” the minister said.

The President on Trump’s visit: it cannot be ruled out that it will have historic significance

Asked whether the President expected Trump to announce permanent, rather than merely rotating presence of U.S. troops in Poland, he replied: “This is our aim. Whether such a declaration will be made now or at some other point is a question we should ask President Trump. The minister was also asked about charges made against Trump, concerning his alleged pro-Russian stance. Łapiński recalled the fact that one of Trump’s advisers, who had concealed his contacts with Russia, was dismissed. “President Trump himself, since he took office, has not given any indications that he was contemplating a deal with Russia over our heads,” stressed Łapiński. Źródło: tvn24.pl, wyborcza.pl/ tłumaczenie Intertext.com.pl (http://www.tvn24.pl)

Could have historic significance and impact on Poland indeed.

....as imposition of foreigners would: black, well financed and militarily equipped.

Darwin Digest: North, East and West Africa. ...“We” was Not Kangs.

On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction - when Jewish victimology turns attention to Jews as the victimizers, Jewish exceptionalism is invoked as “Neo” - “As long as I can remember I’ve been a ‘Neo’-Something: A Neo-Marxist, a Neo-Trotskyist, a Neo-Liberal, a Neo-Conservative and in religion, always, Neo-Orthodox, even while I was a Neo-Trotskyist and a Neo-Marxist….I’m going to end up a Neo, just Neo, that’s all.”

Intersectionality: Jewish ordering and exceptionalism in victimology - the “Neo-exceptions” of victimology in the age of treason:

Tanstaafl usually provides incisive insight into Jewish machinations. As he does here in his observation of “intersectionality”, recognizing that to be the point at which Jewish victimology turns attention back to them as the victimizers - which then requires their interests to propose their exceptionalism to the rule - a rule which might be wiggled-out-of as they don themselves “neo” this or that.

Tan’s incisiveness can, however, cut off important “ambiguities” - “ambiguities” that provide means for learning, creativity and agency in the realm of praxis - Tan accuses me of “jargon” for this word, which outlines the interactivity of the social world and its impossibility to predict 1000% for the human capacity for reflexive agency in responses; e.g., I was surprised by Tan when he wanted me to clearly understand that he had “no problem with Hitler.” I expected him to change that, to observe problems, at least some problems with Hitler’s worldview after a reading on his former network of the chapter in Table-Talk, viz., where Hitler discusses his opinion of Ukrainians, the subservient role he saw for those not killed in resistance to his aspiration for aggrandizement of their land. Tan had, after all, objected to Carolyn’s insulting support of Hitler’s disparagement.

Typically in this post also then, we should look-out for some blind spots in Tan’s analysis for his tacit identification with a right-wing perspective, particularly Nazi apologetics.

The wish to vindicate Hitler can make for an over-focus, even if slightly, on Jews as the problem. If Jews were THAT much of the problem, virtually the only problem, then Hitler is apparently, largely vindicated for his “minor indiscretions”. It is not that there should not be strong focus on on the J.Q. But it becomes an “over-focus” when in that incisive focus it parses-out and does not afford discussion of our part, our agency - where any sort of ambiguity is not allowed-for as it does not follow the “logic” of the J.Q. (us or them) - as was the case where Tan’s logic accused someone like me of trying to distract, minimize or malign those who focus on the J.Q. Whereas I am, in fact, merely calling for the need to also examine the part some of our people play (as if we don’t know that Jews like Alana Mercer try to focus singularly on that side of the equation) in our situation, with Jews and otherwise.

When Tan seeks to vindicate Hitler and unburden guilt and agency among his community of sympathizers - by suggesting rather that I am minimizing the J.Q., the singularly paramount issue, a life and death struggle against Jewish interests, as he expresses it - Tan is pushing Whites in the direction of repeating the same mistake, of headlong and disastrous reaction for wont of sufficiently deep and broad epistemic preparation - a necessary grounding especially in the praxis of European ethno-national coordination (which the motive of Hitler vindication precludes). 

Furthermore, by not allowing for the “ambiguity” of praxis he performs an additional disservice by going along with a Jewish default on left and right - i.e., where they can’t get you to cop to being a right winger or an alt-righter, they want you to say, as Tan does, “left and right is not a useful distinction.” Tan adds cleverly, I am a “White winger.”

While he has criticized Lawrence Auster for making liberalism the problem and not Jews, his overly precise focus has bi-passed the fact that liberalism is the problem in the sense that liberalism unfolds characteristically, in reality, as license against group classificatory interests - a consequent in reality especially given the manicheanism of Jewish interests which exaggerate and instigate that liberal prerogative indeed; though liberalism as it follows consequently of insufficient account to our interests is still the manifest problem, even if Auster complains about it, even if instigated by Auster’s fellow YKW: And particularly if liberalism is hidden beneath titular conservatism, as in neo-conservatism or paleoconservatism, or the mistakenly presumed conservatism of Christianity - as any sort of conservatism that they propose will be under their Noahide control; thus not conservative of our sovereign classificatory interests.

Worse, Tan says that Gottfried wants to blame liberalism as well - and so he does, but even more so does Gottfried want to blame and vilify “The Left” - the unionized accountability to social classification - and to position White identity against it - and has, in the form of the Alternative-Right - everybody is blaming “the left” as a result of the language game Gottfried set in motion. And while it is not always correct to play “opposite day”, in this case, it is - we should be asking why Gottfried et al. want us to do that? What is wrong about a White Right - Alt-Right or otherwise? Even more significantly, what is correct about a White Left perspective such that Gottfried et al. do not want us to identify with it?

I do believe that Tan’s blind spots stem from his starting point in defense of his partial German heritage, partly from his STEM-nerd background as well, which has been overly-reinforced against the helpful ambiguities of praxis by right-wing reactionary communities in The US. Thus, he will gain dubious support, for example by fellow Hitler apologist Wolf Wall Street - who will call Tan “the greatest epistemologist in White Nationalism”. When in fact, epistemology is one of Tanstaafl’s blind spots and weak points.

That doesn’t mean that most of what Tan has to say isn’t good - it is. His amplification of the matter of crypsis is an important contribution. But incisive, good and significant as his citing “anti-racism as a Jewish construct” is, it hardly renders insignificant my observation that “anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and killing people.” His statement can be seen as a focus on the major pathogen afflicting European peoples, while my statement focuses on the fundamental element of our systemic immuno-deficiency.

Theresa May confirms white man attacked Muslims leaving mosque after Ramadan prayers

Security at mosques across the UK will be reviewed in the wake of the Finsbury Park terror attack, the Prime Minister has said. More follows…

Independent, 19 June, 2017 - Here is Theresa May’s statement in full:

“This morning, our country woke to news of another terrorist attack on the streets of our capital city: the second this month and every bit as sickening as those which have come before.

“It was an attack that once again targeted the ordinary and the innocent going about their daily lives – this time British Muslims as they left a Mosque having broken their fast and prayed together at this sacred time of year.

“Today we come together - as we have done before – to condemn this act and to state once again that hatred and evil of this kind will never succeed.

“The Government’s Emergency Committee, COBRA, has just met and I can set out what we know about what happened, and the steps that we are taking to respond.

“Just after twenty-past midnight, the Metropolitan Police received reports that a van had been driven into a crowd of people on Seven Sisters Road in Finsbury Park.

“Officers were in the immediate vicinity as the attack unfolded and responded within one minute.

“Police declared it a terrorist incident within eight minutes.

“One man was pronounced dead at the scene; eight injured were taken to three separate hospitals; while two were treated at the scene for more minor injuries.

“The driver of the van - a white man aged 48 - was bravely detained by members of the public at the scene and then arrested by police.

“The early assessment by the police is that the attacker acted alone.

“Our thoughts and prayers this morning are with the family and friends of the man who died and those who were injured.

“On behalf of the people of London – and the whole country – I want to thank the police and the emergency services once again for responding as they always do with great professionalism and courage.

“Extra police resources have already been deployed to reassure communities, and the police will continue to assess the security needs of Mosques and provide any additional resources needed, especially during this final week before Eid Al-Fitr, a particularly important time for the whole Muslim community.

“This was an attack on Muslims near their place of worship. And like all terrorism, in whatever form, it shares the same fundamental goal.

“It seeks to drive us apart; and to break the precious bonds of solidarity and citizenship that we share in this country.

“We will not let this happen.

“When I stood here for the first time as Prime Minister last Summer I spoke about our precious belief in the Union – not just the bond between the four nations of the United Kingdom – but the bond between all our citizens, every one of us, whoever we are and wherever we are from.

“At the heart of that bond is a belief in the fundamental freedoms and liberties that we all cherish; the freedom of speech; the freedom to live how we choose and yes, the freedom to practice religion in peace.

“This morning we have seen a sickening attempt to destroy those freedoms; and to break those bonds of citizenship that define our United Kingdom.

“It is a reminder that terrorism, extremism and hatred take many forms; and our determination to tackle them must be the same whoever is responsible. 

“As I said here two weeks ago, there has been far too much tolerance of extremism in our country over many years – and that means extremism of any kind, including Islamophobia.

“That is why this Government will act to stamp out extremist and hateful ideology – both across society and on the internet, so it is denied a safe space to grow.

“It is why we will be reviewing our Counter-Terrorism strategy and ensuring that police and security services have the powers they need.

“And it is why we will establish a new Commission for Countering Extremism as a statutory body to help fight hatred and extremism in the same way as we have fought racism – because this extremism is every bit as insidious and destructive to our values and our way of life and we will stop at nothing to defeat it.

“Today’s attack falls at a difficult time in the life of this city, following on from the attack on London Bridge two weeks ago – and of course the unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell Tower last week, on which I will chair another meeting of Ministers and officials later today.

“But what we have seen throughout – whether in the heroism of the ordinary citizens who fought off the attackers at London Bridge; the unbreakable resolve of the residents in Kensington; or this morning the spirit of the community that apprehended this attacker – is that this is an extraordinary city of extraordinary people.

“It is home to a multitude of communities that together make London one of the greatest cities on earth.

“Diverse, welcoming, vibrant, compassionate, confident and determined never to give in to hate.

“These are the values that define this city.

“These are the values that define this country.

“These are the values that this government will uphold.

“These are the values that will prevail.”

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.