Majorityrights News > Category: Islam & Islamification

“I’ll remember Jodie Wilkinson ...an Englishwoman slept on the streets as the government housed and fed hundreds of thousands of aliens.”

Morgoth’s, “Will Anyone Remember Jodie Wilkinson?”, 19 Oct 2016:

Some idle speculation on a recent murder in my home town…..

On Monday a murder took place here in the North East of England which has left many of the locals, myself included, somewhat baffled.

Newcastle and the North East are ‘rough’ and relatively poor but murder is exceptionally rare, and the manner of Jodie Wilkinson’s murder must qualify as unique, according to the BBC:

‘‘Jodie Wilkinson, 27, died in hospital after being attacked by a group of up to 11 men in the city’s Stanhope Street on Monday afternoon, police said.

A 25-year-old man who was with her at the time was also injured and needed hospital treatment.
 
Police said those arrested, a man aged 43, two aged 25, and three others aged 22, 20 and 18, were being questioned.’‘

So Jodie Wilkinson was walking through a busy street in broad daylight with a male friend when she was attacked by 11(!) men who stabbed her to death. And this is all the information the police and local media have thus far released. At least 6 men are still on the loose, but no descriptions have been given to the public.

Furthermore, the area where the murder took place is well known to be ‘troublesome’ and like so many other parts of England is lathered with CCTV cameras, yet no footage of the killers is available.

From the perspective of ‘normies’ in the North East this whole case is bizarre, nobody here has ever known of 11 men attacking and stabbing to death a woman in the middle of the day, a domestic fight can get out of hand, a couple of rival gangs can fight and somebody might get stabbed, but this is something else….something alien. And ‘why’ people are asking, why is the identity of the perpetrators not being released during a manhunt?

Needless to say, the area, Arthur’s Hill, which is Newcastle’s West End, has become rather more vibrant in recent years, the local newspaper reports…

READ MORE...

Visgrad Post, “Orbán plans to double the Hungarian army and rise patriotism among children”, 19 Oct 2016:

Hungary – Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said he had taken the necessary steps in order to double the Hungarian army’s personnel from 2017. Orbán also wishes the military instruction of children to develop, especially using sport. The Hungarian PM wants it to serve as a counter-culture to reinforce social cohesion, patriotism and the spirit of sacrifice.

The Hungarian army is modernizing since 2010 and the return to power of Viktor Orbán, but it is unsatisfactory for the strongman of Budapest, in a context which sees, he said, “the neighbors rearming themselves.” Viktor Orbán said in an interview given to the Catholic radio Katolikus Rádió he will almost double the size of the Hungarian Army from 2017. The Magyar Honvédség, the Hungarian army, has in its ranks 30,000 soldiers, of which 23,000 are active military and which has approximately 4-5,000 operational troops. Orbán wants to recruit 20,000 reservists.

Hungary is a member of NATO and is theoretically obliged to spend 2% of its annual GDP on defense. So far, the defense budget in Hungary stagnated just below 1%. The government of Viktor Orbán plans to launch a gradual growth until 2022 regarding the budget allocated to the army by increasing it of 0.1% of GDP each year. This recruitment campaign echoes the recent police recruitment campaign in order to protect the southern border from the migration wave.

Viktor Orbán wants to use the army as a tool of counter-culture

Beyond this strengthening of the Hungarian Army, Orbán also wants the army to be present in schools, especially in the area of sport. The Minister of Defense stated that the project is to strengthen “patriotic commitment and spirit of sacrifice” among youngsters. This will be realized also by “proposing more and more to young people, in the light of the national interest, to be volunteering in the reserve,” added the Minister. A new sport institution of the army will be created for the purpose, aiming to reach schoolchildren from the age of 7. This plan is to be part of his plan for a “cultural counter-revolution”.

The Defense Minister has since January already mentioned some parts of these projects. He has talked about the government’s commitment to strengthen the “military school program”, so that children would learn in school the basic military knowledge. The Minister explained that this is in order to introduce a kind of counter-culture to give the children a morality and a way of thinking based on patriotism. According to Mr Simicskó, Defense Minister since November 2015, sporty and patriotic life style are out of fashion because “young people are at their computer, so the social and sens of civic responsibility are minimal”

        It is a particularly good and important idea to instill patriotism in children.

Can the Daily Mail say “Muslim” ?

Is it so hard to say Islam? How about the fact that all of these rapists come from one notoriously Islamic area in Pakistan. Glossing over that fact by calling them “Asians” is an obvious obfuscation on the part of DM editors.

Mark Duell for MailOnline, 17 October 2016:

‘All white girls are good for is sex. They’re just sl*gs’: Eight members of ‘openly racist’ violent Asian sex gang raped and ‘sexually degraded’ three teenage girls in Rotherham.

WHAT WERE THE 8 GANG MEMBERS CONVICTED OF?

The jury retired to consider verdicts on October 11 and today convicted all eight gang members on all counts after deliberating for almost 18 hours.

Ringleader Sageer Hussain, 30, of Clough Road, Rotherham, was convicted of four rapes and one indecent assault.

Mohammed Whied, 32, of Psalters Lane, Rotherham, was found guilty of one count of aiding and abetting rape.

Ishtiaq Khaliq, 33, of Cherry Brook, Rotherham, was found guilty of one rape and three indecent assaults.

Waleed Ali, 34, of Canklow Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of one rape and one indecent assault.

Asif Ali, 30, of Clough Road, Rotherham, was convicted on one rape.

Masoued Malik, 32, of Bridgewater Way, Rotherham, was found guilty of one rape, one count of conspiracy to commit indecent assault and one of false imprisonment.

Basharat Hussain, 40, from Goole, was convicted of one indecent assault.

And Naeem Rafiq, 33, of Clarendon Road, Rotherham, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit indecent assault and one of false imprisonment.

They were remanded in custody for sentencing on November 4.

Hillary Leaks: Pick Your Outrage

The Dark Side of Self Actualization

..illustrating the inherent instability of the right -

The reflexive reversal of Derek Black - precociously showing early signs to be a leader of White Nationalism, he has done a 180: he renounces anti-Semitism, studies Islamic culture, calling for empathy for this culture which “was advanced of European culture” at a time when Europe was a backwater; says that he agrees with Hillary Clinton’s positions in 97%; claims that he does not believe in the White genocide meme that he helped to popularize because “race is a false concept anyway.”

That comes along with an array of cultural Marxist concepts that he now subscribes-to.

Derek Black pictured Sept. 25, 2016. “It’s scary to know that I helped spread this stuff, and now it’s out there,” he told a friend, alluding to the ideology he once promoted. (Matt McClain/Washington Post)

The Washington Post, “The white flight of Derek Black”, 15 Oct 2016:

“The leading light of our movement,” was how the conference organizer introduced him, and then Derek stepped to the lectern.

“The way ahead is through politics,” he said. “We can infiltrate. We can take the country back.”

[...]

He never used racial slurs. He didn’t advocate violence or lawbreaking. He had won a Republican committee seat in Palm Beach County, Fla., where Trump also had a home, without ever mentioning white nationalism, talking instead about the ravages of political correctness, affirmative action and unchecked Hispanic immigration.

He was not only a leader of racial politics but also a product of them. His father, Don Black, had created Stormfront, the Internet’s first and largest white nationalist site, with 300,000 users and counting. His mother, Chloe, had once been married to David Duke, one of the country’s most infamous racial zealots, and Duke had become Derek’s godfather. They had raised Derek at the forefront of the movement, and some white nationalists had begun calling him “the heir.”

Now Derek spoke in Memphis about the future of their ideology. “The Republican Party has to be either demolished or taken over,” he said. “I’m kind of banking on the Republicans staking their claim as the white party.”

A few people in the audience started to clap, and then a few more began to whistle, and before long the whole group was applauding. “Our moment,” Derek said, because at least in this room there was consensus. They believed white nationalism was about to drive a political revolution. They believed, at least for the moment, that Derek would help lead it.

“Years from now, we will look back on this,” he said. “The great intellectual move to save white people started today.”

[...]

“It’s been brought to my attention that people might be scared or intimidated or even feel unsafe here because of things said about me,” he began. “I wanted to try to address these concerns publicly, as they absolutely should not exist. I do not support oppression of anyone because of his or her race, creed, religion, gender, socioeconomic status or anything similar.”

The forum post, intended only for the college, was leaked to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which kept a public “Intelligence File” on Derek and other racist leaders, and the group emailed Derek for clarification. Was he disavowing white nationalism? “Your views are now quite different from what many people thought,” the email read.

Derek received the message while vacationing in Europe during winter break. He was staying with Duke, who had started broadcasting his radio show from a part of Europe with lenient free-speech laws. “The tea party is taking some of these ideas mainstream,” Duke said on a broadcast one morning. “Whites are finally coming around to my point of view,” he said another day, and even if Derek now thought some of what Duke said sounded exaggerated or even alarming, the man was still his godfather. Derek wrote back to the SPLC from Duke’s couch.

“Everything I said (on the forum) is true,” he wrote. “I also believe in White Nationalism. My post and my racial ideology are not mutually exclusive concepts.”

[...]

But the unstated truth was that Derek was becoming more and more confused about exactly what he believed. Sometimes he looked through posts on Stormfront, hoping to reaffirm his ideology, but now the message threads about Obama’s birth certificate or DNA tests for citizenship just seemed bizarre and conspiratorial. He stopped posting on Stormfront. He began inventing excuses to get out of his radio show, leaving his father alone on the air each morning to explain why Derek wouldn’t be calling in. He was preparing for a test. He was giving those liberal professors hell. Except sometimes what Derek was really doing was taking his kayak to the beach, so he could be alone to think.

He had always based his opinions on fact, and lately his logic was being dismantled by emails from his Shabbat friends. They sent him links to studies showing that racial disparities in IQ could largely be explained by extenuating factors like prenatal nutrition and educational opportunities. They gave him scientific papers about the effects of discrimination on blood pressure, job performance and mental health. He read articles about white privilege and the unfair representation of minorities on television news. One friend emailed: “The geNOcide against whites is incredibly, horribly insulting and degrading to real, actual, lived and experienced genocides against Jews, against Rwandans, against Armenians, etc.”

“I don’t hate anyone because of race or religion,” Derek clarified on the forum.

“I am not a white supremacist,” he wrote.

“I don’t believe people of any race, religion or otherwise should have to leave their homes or be segregated or lose any freedom.”

“Derek,” a friend responded. “I feel like you are a representative of a movement you barely buy into. You need to identify with more than 1/50th of a belief system to consider it your belief system.”

He was taking classes in Jewish scripture and German multiculturalism during his last year at New College, but most of his research was focused on medieval Europe. He learned that Western Europe had begun not as a great society of genetically superior people but as a technologically backward place that lagged behind Islamic culture. He studied the 8th century to the 12th century, trying to trace back the modern concepts of race and whiteness, but he couldn’t find them anywhere. “We basically just invented it,” he concluded.

“Get out of this,” one of his Shabbat friends emailed a few weeks after Derek’s graduation in May 2013, urging Derek to publicly disavow white nationalism. “Get out before it ruins some part of your future more than it already irreparably has.”

Derek stayed near campus to housesit for a professor after graduation, and he began to consider making a public statement. He knew he no longer believed in white nationalism, and he had made plans to distance himself from his past by changing part of his name and moving across the country for graduate school. His instinct was to slip away quietly, but his advocacy had always been public — a legacy of radio shows, Internet posts, TV appearances, and an annual conference on racial tactics.

He was still considering what to do when he returned home to visit his parents later that summer. His father was tracking the rise of white nationalism on cable TV, and his parents were talking about “enemies” and “comrades” in the “ongoing war,” but now it sounded ridiculous to Derek. He spent the day rebuilding windows with them, which was one of Derek’s quirky hobbies that his parents had always supported. They had bought his guitar and joined in his medieval re-enactments. They had paid his tuition at the liberal arts college where he had Shabbat dinners. They had taught him, most of all, to be independent and ideological, and to speak his beliefs even when doing so resulted in backlash.

He left the house that night and went to a bar. He took out his computer and began writing a statement.

“A large section of the community I grew up in believes strongly in white nationalism, and members of my family whom I respect greatly, particularly my father, have long been resolute advocates for that cause. I was not prepared to risk driving a wedge in those relationships.

“After a great deal of thought since then, I have resolved that it is in the best interests of everyone involved to be honest about my slow but steady disaffiliation from white nationalism. I can’t support a movement that tells me I can’t be a friend to whomever I wish or that other people’s races require me to think of them in a certain way or be suspicious at their advancements.

“The things I have said as well as my actions have been harmful to people of color, people of Jewish descent, activists striving for opportunity and fairness for all. I am sorry for the damage done.”

He continued to write for several more paragraphs before addressing an email to the SPLC, the group his father had considered a primary adversary for 40 years.

“Publish in full,” Derek instructed. Then he attached the letter and hit “send.”

Don was at the computer the next afternoon searching Google when Derek’s name popped up in a headline on his screen. For a decade, Don had been typing “Stormfront” and “Derek Black” into the search bar a few times each week to track his son’s public rise in white nationalism. This particular story had been published by the SPLC, which Don had always referred to as the “Poverty Palace.”

“Activist Son of Key Racist Leader Renounces White Nationalism,” it read, and Don began to read the letter. It had phrases like “structural oppression,” “privilege,” “limited opportunity,” and “marginalized groups” — the kind of liberal-apologist language Don and Derek had often made fun of on the radio.

“You got hacked,” Don remembered telling Derek, once he reached him on the phone.

“It’s real,” Derek said, and then he heard the sound of his father hanging up.

For the next few hours, Don was in disbelief.

[...]

Later that night, Don logged on to the Stormfront message board. “I’m sure this will be all over the Net and our local media, so I’ll start here,” he wrote, posting a link to Derek’s letter. “I don’t want to talk to him. He says he doesn’t understand why we’d feel betrayed just because he announced his ‘personal beliefs’ to our worst enemies.”

[...]

Late this summer, for the first time in years, he traveled to Florida to see them. At a time of increasingly contentious rhetoric, he wanted to hear what his father had to say. They sat in the house and talked about graduate school and Don’s new German shepherd. But after a while, their conversation turned back to ideology, the topic they had always preferred.

Don, who usually didn’t vote, said he was going to support Trump.

Derek said he had taken an online political quiz, and his views aligned 97 percent with Hillary Clinton’s.

Don said immigration restrictions sounded like a good start.

Derek said he actually believed in more immigration, because he had been studying the social and economic benefits of diversity.

Don thought that would result in a white genocide.

Derek thought race was a false concept anyway.

I was discussing this article with Kumiko. We came to the conclusion that the most charitable explanation for its penultimate confusion - exactly who, really, is to be persuaded and of what? has to do with perhaps a shyness in having to talk in a situation controlled by right wing interests: Euractiv, The EU, corporate industries invested in Asia, and German corporate interests - rather, the difficulty in getting them to see their interests aright.

Seeing the article’s argument more clearly, German, Dutch and other European workers and Asian workers should have higher salaries. That would allow Germans in particular to buy more of their own product and export less and allow Asian economies to buy more European exports in addition to their own domestic product.

The key is to dissuade corporate feudalism - the idea that low wages are a corollary to profitable business. The article argues in effect that low wages are only a corollary to enormous profit for a narrow group of elites, poorer workers and not to successful industry and healthy economic balance.

Where Germany, for example, does not let some of its industry go abroad, it should be incorporating more robotics to increase the better output as they might provide and “make-work” if necessary, with better paid “workers”, with more capacity to buy more of their own domestic product.

Euractiv, “Who fears the wolf of globalisation?”, 14 Oct 2016:

Trade unions and companies are more closely aligned against the harmful competition stemming from emerging economies’ low salaries and working conditions than ever before. The EU’s export of jobs is harming itself and the global economy, write Ernest Maragall and Jordi Angusto.

Ernest Maragall is an MEP with the Green/EFA group and Jordi Angusto is an economist.

They are accused of taking our jobs as a result of the low-cost products we buy from them. But the fact is that the EU’s external surplus has now reached an astonishing amount, close to half a trillion euros. This is 20% bigger than the Chinese surplus and both together pose a serious threat to the world economy.

In other words, by restricting our domestic demand through austerity we’re harming both ourselves and our major trading partners.

There is no ‘foreign enemy’ taking our jobs, rather the EU is taking jobs to the rest of the world. Prime examples are countries such as Germany and the Netherlands which are the main contributors to the EU surplus and which today have historically high employment thanks to third country demand, mostly from the US, UK, Canada, Brazil and Australia. And this is most definitely not because Germany and the Netherlands have low salaries.

In fact, companies tend not to invest where salaries are lower but where the difference between product per worker and salary is greater; i.e. where profitability can be greatest. In the case of Germany, the reunification process and the Schröder 2010 plan led to a huge contraction in wages and a notable increase in the product to salary difference.

Some might say they gained in terms of competitiveness, increasing economic activity, jobs and exports. Others, however, would see this not only as ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’, but their own people too, becoming unable to absorb increased production and depending on exports.

Whilst productivity gains can allow profits and wages to increase and support growth; competitiveness gained through wage dumping leads to a substitution effect, with jobs and profits gained here at the expense of jobs and profits lost elsewhere. This, in turn, leads to contraction because of a fall in demand.

That’s why institutions which could never be accused of being leftwing such as the IMF, the G20 and the OECD, have called upon Germany to increase domestic demand through public investment and salary increases, in order to help boost global growth whilst also contributing towards an improvement in labour conditions in emergent-economies.

Or do we think we’ll help them by competing to see who has the lowest salaries?

Globalisation brings many problems and with it comes the need for political action at a global level to heal our planet, eradicate tax havens and avoid the consolidation of a new corporate feudalism; but the fact that millions of people are emerging from poverty in Asia and Africa is not a problem. The critical problem today is much more how to convince those countries in surplus to increase their domestic demand.

TNO, “The War for Germany”, 14 Oct 2016:

German patriots are waging an increasingly violent struggle in the fight in defense of their homeland, and in the first nine months of 2016, have carried out 63 arson attacks,  and 556 “damage to property” attacks, which have resulted in six deaths.

Patriots have also been named as carrying out 213 illegal gatherings, 16 violations of the arms act, 4 explosive offenses, 4 serious assaults, 507 “summary violations,” and 527 “propaganda offenses.”

The figures were released by the German Federal government in the Bundestag in answer to a detailed question from a member of the Green Party.

The figures also broke down attacks in regard to those committed by invaders and communists, although these are proportionally far fewer than those committed by the patriots.

According to the statistics, which were compiled up to and including September 12, 2016, the breakdown of offenses reported to the police were as follows:

Homicide

Invaders: 1; Communists: 0; Patriots: 6.

Assault:

Invaders: 42; Communists: 29; Patriots: 405.

Arson

Invaders: 0; Communists: 8; Patriots: 63.

Explosive offenses:

Invaders: 0; Communists: 0; Patriots: 4.

Breach of the Peace:

Foreigners: 2; Leftists: 10; Patriots: 8.

Serious Assault:

Invaders: 0; Communists: 4; Patriots: 4.

Kidnapping

Invaders: 0; Communists: 1; Patriots: 1.

Robbery

Invaders: 0; Communists: 0; Patriots: 5.

Blackmail

Invaders: 1; Communists: 0; Patriots: 0.

Resisting Police Officers

Invaders: 1; Communists: 15; Patriots: 10.

“Summary Violations”

Invaders: 47; Communists: 67; Patriots: 507.

Damage to Property

Invaders: 5; Communists: 136; Patriots: 556.

Threats/Coercion

Invaders: 25; Communists: 2; Patriots: 116.

Propaganda Offenses

Invaders: 3; Communists: 2; Patriots: 527.

Racial Incitement

Invaders: 1; Communists: 0; Patriots: 1,069.

Illegal Gatherings

Invaders: 5; Communists: 59; Patriots: 213.

Violation of the Weapons Act

Invaders: 0; Communists: 1; Patriots: 16.

Other Offenses

Invaders: 19; Communists: 40; Patriots: 507.

With regard to these categories, it should be borne in mind that the German government classes any sort of public utterance expressing concern over the extent of the nonwhite invasion of that country as “racial incitement,” while it broadly categorizes even the slightest reference to the Third Reich under “propaganda offenses.”