Majorityrights News > Category: Globalisation

Small boats facilitate invasion

New Observer, “Italy: 2,074 Seaborne African Invaders Land in One Day”, 15 April 2017:

The ongoing African invasion of Europe continues to speed up, with 2,074 Africans landing in Italy in just one day.

The mass invasion—by [Africans] who have absolutely no right to claim asylum anywhere, and who are motivated purely by what they can get by way of charity handouts from liberal Europeans—is aided and abetted by the “rescue” missions run by private leftist charities and naval units from various European states.

An Italian coast guard spokesman told media that on Friday last week, 19 such “rescue operations” by his nation’s coast guard, or ships operated by non-governmental organizations, had plucked the 2,074 invaders from “16 rubber dinghies and three small wooden boats.”

The fact that the Africans were in such small vessels shows once again that they do not even have to cross the Mediterranean, but only have to set sail from the coast of Libya before being picked up by the Europeans and transported in comfort and safety to Europe—instead of being dumped back on the nearby African coast as they should be.

READ MORE...

...he gets the wrong answer, of course. Garbage in means garbage out:

Emile Bruneau recently invited Muslim students and staff at the University of Pennsylvania to help him figure out one of the most pressing questions of our time: How can we stop despising each other?

Bruneau wanted to know more about what kind of arguments effectively combat common prejudices: that Muslims are terrorists, that they don’t want to assimilate, that they are intolerant and hate American freedom. Liberals often believe that Muslim women are oppressed. He enlisted members of the Muslim Students Association to look for videos they thought might prove persuasive. He thought firsthand experience with discrimination might be helpful. (He’s also working with former white nationalists.) He was looking, he told them, for “individualized psychological medicine.”

What worked best was a “very cerebral” video from Al Jazeera in which a Muslim woman said blaming all Muslims for terrorism was like blaming all Christians for the actions of Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK.

The question to ask is not, “how can we bridge our divides and induce Abrahamic religions and peoples to accept one another?”

It is rather to ask, “how can we disabuse people of Abrahamic religion and its universal imperialism in order to defend ethno-nationalism and human ecology against it; and failing completion of that task, contain its extant effects on people; keep our sane interests from being affected by its intransigent elements and lingering influences?”

Communicology is a fascinating and eminently useful discipline that we will be applying here at MR - correctly, unlike this effort from the Annenberg school. Nevertheless, there are some interesting take-away propositions here - notably, that Americans are low information decision makers, therefore equipping them with particularly helpful analogies for them to rationalize their coming to a position we like for them (in our case, we would want them to come to a natural and healthy ethnonationalist position for them and their people) is liable to work better than emotional appeals, despite a commonly ascribed-to school of thought which holds emotions to be the effective means to that end. 

Philly.com, “Penn professor uses science to bridge the political divide”, 2 April 2017:

Emile Bruneau studies conflict between groups and how to combat prejudice at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communication.

Emile Bruneau recently invited Muslim students and staff at the University of Pennsylvania to help him figure out one of the most pressing questions of our time: How can we stop despising each other?

Muslims and Christians may have been the groups he had in mind that day, but Bruneau, a child of California hippies who took an unusual route to Penn’s Annenberg School for Communication, ultimately has broader goals in mind.  What if there is a psychological key that could defuse the animosity between hate-filled groups around the globe? That includes U.S. Republicans and Democrats, who, his research has found, are almost as alienated from one another as Palestinians and Israelis. The only difference, he said, “is that we’re not actually killing each other.”

Most of us think the antidote to hate and close-mindedness is emotional. But, so far, Bruneau’s research shows that the way to the mind is not necessarily through the heart. In fact, he believes, the way to the heart is through the mind.

Bruneau wanted to know more about what kind of arguments effectively combat common prejudices: that Muslims are terrorists, that they don’t want to assimilate, that they are intolerant and hate American freedom. Liberals often believe that Muslim women are oppressed. He enlisted members of the Muslim Students Association to look for videos they thought might prove persuasive. He thought firsthand experience with discrimination might be helpful. (He’s also working with former white nationalists.) He was looking, he told them, for “individualized psychological medicine.”

READ MORE...

A Briton was among four killed in Stockholm terror attack

Telegraph, “Stockholm terror attack: four reported dead as hijacked truck ploughs into pedestrians,” 7 April 2017:

Truck is hijacked and driven into Stockholm department store

At least four reported dead and many injured after terror attack

Witnesses report hundreds of shoppers running for their lives

Swedish capital goes into lockdown and central station evacuated

Swedish Prime Minister: Everything indicates this is terrorism

EU’s Jean-Claude Juncker: Terror assault is attack on us all

Crash comes after trucks used in Nice and Berlin atrocities

At least four people are reported dead and many more injured after a terror attack that saw a hijacked lorry plough into pedestrians outside a Stockholm department store

      ...and that’s why our enemies hate him.

      Bashar Al-Assad visiting the Holodomor memorial dedicated to the Ukrainians who perished by starvation under the Soviets.

Visigrad Post, “The Visegrád Group Will Not Yield to Blackmail, and Hungary Strengthens Anti-Immigration Policy”, 28 March 2017:

Poland, Warsaw – The leaders of the Visegrád Group, meeting in Warsaw on Tuesday (March 28th), denounced with one voice the European blackmail and diktat over them regarding migration policy.

The four prime ministers strongly opposed the idea of ​​linking the distribution of EU funds to the EU’s migration policy.

“The idea of ​​linking the funds due to us from the EU with migration policy is bad. Together as the Visegrad Group, we cannot be intimidated, “Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said at a joint press conference with his Czech counterpart Bohuslav Sobotka, Slovakian Robert Fico and Polish Beata Szydlo.

“The Visegrad Group, including Poland, will never accept this blackmail, nor be dictated conditions. We are saying clearly that the migration policy that has been followed up until now by the EU has not proved its worth, and we must learn from it, “Szydlo insisted.

Hungary continues anti-immigration policy

On the same day, the law allowing detention of illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers entered into force in Hungary. “Hungary is now in a position to respond even if the agreement between the EU and Turkey fails. We are able to stop any wave of immigration on the Serbian-Hungarian border, “Orban said, adding that “the Austrians and Germans can now sleep peacefully.”

       
        The second fence will be completed by summer, the Hungarian Interior Ministry said.

It is important to note, however, that migrant detention centers are not prisons. Placed on the border, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are allowed to leave for Serbia at any time, if they do not wish to follow the legal procedures for entering into Hungary, Schengen and the European Union.

Euractiv, “Green NGOs blame Monsanto for ‘buying science’ to save glyphosate”, 24 March 2017:

The authors of the report claim that between 2012 and 2016, the companies sponsored a series of review articles published in scientific journals, all of which conclude that glyphosate and its commercial formulations are not carcinogenic. [Mike Mozart/Flickr]

A new report accuses glyphosate producers of “buying science” in order to secure the substance’s position in the EU market.

According to the Buying Science report published by GLOBAL 2000 (Friends of the Earth Austria member of Pesticide Action Network-PAN) with the support of Avaaz, BUND, Campact, CEO, GMWatch, (PAN) Europe, PAN Germany, and Umweltinstitut München, Monsanto and other glyphosate manufacturers allegedly “distorted scientific evidence” on the public health impacts of the pesticide.

The authors of the report claim that, between 2012 and 2016, the companies sponsored a series of review articles published in scientific journals, all of which conclude that glyphosate and its commercial formulations are not carcinogenic.

Scandalous

“Glyphosate producers have used every trick in the book to enable regulatory authorities around the world to play down the alarming health effects of glyphosate. The fact that the agencies accepted their ‘assistance’ is nothing less than scandalous,” insisted Helmut Burtscher, one of the study’s authors.

Earlier this month (15 March), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concluded that glyphosate weedkiller should not be classified as a carcinogen.

Environmentalist NGOs reacted strongly, with Greenpeace saying that the ECHA “sweeps glyphosate cancer evidence under the carpet”.

Glyphosate is not carcinogenic, EU agency says.

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) said today (15 March) that much-discussed glyphosate weedkiller should not be classified as a carcinogen, triggering a strong response from environmentalist NGOs.

The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) went further, claiming that the decision contradicted the world’s most authoritative cancer research agency, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” in 2015.

Scientific flaws

The NGOs claim that these reviews proving glyphosate is safe contain “fundamental scientific flaws spanning from apparently calculated omissions and the introduction of irrelevant data to the violation of OECD guidance for the evaluation of rodent cancer studies”.

“The reviews also consistently assign greater weight to unpublished industry studies than to studies that were peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals,” the report noted.

The report stressed that regulatory authorities like Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have all drawn on such review articles, which have concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic, have actually referred to these industry-sponsored review articles.

“In contrast, IARC refused to consider the unpublished industry studies summarised in industry-sponsored reviews in its assessment of glyphosate, stating that the data presented therein were insufficient and important details were lacking […] IARC generally does not accept unpublished scientific evidence,” the authors of the report concluded.

Europe poised for total ban on bee-harming pesticides.

The world’s most widely used insecticides would be banned from all fields across Europe under draft regulations from the European Commission, seen by EURACTIV’s partner The Guardian.

Positions

European Commission Spokesperson Enrico Brivio recently told EURACTIV that the EU executive “took notice” of ECHA’s opinion, which was “based on scientific evidence”.

“The submission of the final opinion to the Commission is expected before the summer break […] After submission of the final opinion, the Commission Services will re-start their discussions with the member states as regards the approval of glyphosate as an active substance in Plant Protection Products (PPPs).”

“A decision has to be taken within 6 months of receipt of the RAC Opinion from ECHA, or by the end of 2017 – at the latest,” he added.

An EFSA spokesperson said, after this article was published, that “EFSA is the first to defend the importance of reliable science as it forms the basis of all our risk assessments”, adding “from an initial glance at the “Purchased Science” report, it is clear that the majority of mentioned studies were published after EFSA had completed its assessment of glyphosate. In other words, they did not play any role in the EFSA assessment of glyphosate”.

“There are two scientific reviews mentioned in the report (Williams et al 2000, Kier and Kirkland 2013) that were among the 700 references considered in the EU assessment for glyphosate. EFSA and EU member states rely primarily on the original studies and the underlying raw data which they check themselves. The weight given to reviews of scientific studies (like the ones mentioned in the report) is limited,” they added.

“There are no grounds to suggest that reviews of scientific studies, sponsored directly or indirectly by industry, improperly influenced the EU risk assessment for glyphosate,” the spokesperson concluded.

Background

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to cause cancer in humans and proposed higher limits on the amount of residue of the weedkiller deemed safe for humans to consume.

The EFSA advises EU policymakers and its conclusion were expected to pave the way for the 28-member European Union to renew approval for glyphosate, which was brought into use by Monsanto in the 1970s and is used in its top selling product Roundup as well as in many other herbicides around the world.

Environmental groups have been calling for a ban after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organisation, said in March 2015 that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

A campaign group said that 1.4 million people had signed a petition calling on the European Union to suspend glyphosate approval pending further assessment.

The EFSA said it had carried out a thorough analysis and taken account of the IARC’s findings. Greenpeace, for its part, called the EFSA’s report “a whitewash”.

Ms. Iqra Khalid, a Muslim, pushes through anti-Islamophobia motion.

Breitbart, “Canadian Parliament Passes Controversial Islamophobia Motion”, 24 March 2017:

The Canadian House of Commons has passed motion M103 which singles out the criticism of Islam as a form of “Islamophobia”. Critics condemn it as an attack on free speech.

Motion M103 was tabled by Iqra Khalid, a Muslim member of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party. It states the government must “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”, was taken to vote on Thursday evening where a total of 201 MPs voted for it and only 91 voted against, Canadian broadcaster Global News reports.

The text of the motion does not clarify what constitutes “Islamophobia” and has led many to speculate what that may mean in the future, with some critics fearing it could lead to Shariah law courts. This concern has led to the circulation of an anti-Shariah petition on the Parliament of Canada website, which has so far been signed by over 24,000 people.

Ms. Khalid, who was born in Pakistan and moved to the UK and then to Canada, said the definition of Islamophobia was: “The irrational hate of Muslims that leads to discrimination.”

When Conservatives asked her to remove Islamophobia from the motion, she said: “I will not do so, any more than I would speak to the Holocaust and not mention that the overwhelming majority of victims were six million followers of the Jewish faith and that anti-Semitism was the root cause of the Holocaust.”

Another part of the bill that has stirred controversy is the passage that asks the government to “recognise the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear”. It is currently unknown what measures the government will take to “quell” “hate and fear” as the motion is not classified as a law and has no effect on current criminal law.

The Conservative Party of Canada are currently holding leadership elections and many of the candidates have come out against M103 including one of the frontrunners, Quebecer Maxime Bernier. Mr. Bernier, a conservative with libertarian free market leanings, said he voted against the bill tweeting: “Free speech is the most fundamental right we have. I am opposed to #m103. Canadians should be treated equally regardless of religion.”

        Visigrad Post, “Orbán: Brussels Must be Halted, and Hungary Must Stand Up Against International Capital”, 24 March 2017:

Hungary – Prime Minister Viktor Orbán called March 15 an “indisputable proof” of the Hungarian nation’s past, present and future, at a commemoration of the 1848-49 revolution and freedom fight on Wednesday, March 15.

Speaking in front of the National Museum, the prime minister said that European nations are in a “state of revolt”, with the “winds of 48 blowing again on the continent”. Over the past years European nations once again revolted against “the hypocritical alliance of the Brussels bureaucrats, the liberal international media and the insatiable global capital,” Orbán said.

First the British, then the Americans rebelled, to be followed by others this year, he added. Orbán stressed the need for Brussels to take off the “masks of hypocrisy”, and opt for straight speech and an open discussion of the future.

Orbán emphasised that the resettlement of illegal migrants must be prevented, the network financed from foreign funds made transparent, and the right to regulate taxes, wages and utility prices kept in national competence.

Orbán called March 15 an “indisputable proof” of the Hungarian nation’s past, present and future. “We, living in the Carpathian Basin, at the buffer zone of cultures, empires and civilisations, can be proud of the greatest triumph of all, winning all wars for the survival of our homeland, our nation,” he said.

He said 1848 had become a “moral compass” for the nation, one that shows who is “loyal, patriotic, dedicated and brave” on the one hand, and exposes “pettiness, perfidy and efforts to kill dreams and destroy the nation” on the other. The prime minister insisted that national unity should be retained and cemented day by day.

“But what should we do with those who want unrest and division rather than peace and unity . whose only pleasure lies in spoiling the holiday of others,” he asked, referring to a group whistling during his speech. “It would be easy to mock them but we should not do that,” he said adding that Hungarians should “stand their ground on the horizon of building the nation rather than in the skirmishes of petty parties.”

“From the horizon of the Hungarian nation, one can choose the road that leads us to the wide gate of greatness or the one that leads to the swamp of hatred,” he said.

Article originally published at Daily News Hungary.