Majorityrights News > Category: Psychology

Excellent article and comments at TOO about the politics and circles of Jo Cox and her husband.

The article casts evergreen light on the nefarious power structure and imminions* of the British political class well beyond doubts as to how the Cox murder would impact the Brexit vote, now that the vote has transpired.

Some pearls from the article and comments:

“Hers was the typical smooth career path of the modern political cog.”

Her political way was paved by becoming a water carrier for wives of the liberal political class. She imbibed and voiced its concerns - i.e., for the plight of anybody** but White native British. To the point where she ignored the rape of British girls that was going on under her nose - crimes being prosecuted, in fact, the day she died. Despite the obvious contradiction of Islam and her liberal politics, she would not say “boo” to Islam because her lucrative political career depended upon support of Muslims in her constituency.

Her husband was in complete alignment with her liberal political madness. He openly discussed ways to pander to those young people, at least those who have not yet been disabused of the PC kool-aid, as a group to counteract growing “national populist anti-immigration sentiment.”

He was such a political apparatchik that on the day that his wife was murdered, he was preoccupied with lambasting the leave campaign as opposed to attending to normal protocols of family bereavement.

Just the kind of tag-team that would flush ordinary White men down the toilet. She the gate keeper to make sure that their voice and concerns were blocked and never to be addressed; only letting through and empowering liberal “alpha males” like Brandon, who would complete the act of flushing normal White men down the toilet.

Both were lavishly rewarded for betraying normal British people.

Now that we have a bead on the patterns underpinning Jo and Brandon Cox’s insane liberalism, it begs the question of who Tommy Mair was in response to theirs and their society’s insanity? Should we dismiss him as merely crazy? Should we shy away from the fact that he had political and native nationalist motivations because his manifestation was of dubious tact?

Or is it occasion to look at silenced voices behind the reaction?

* It was too tempting to not go with what started out as a typo to the word “minion” here.

** Excepting, perhaps, if they interfered with Jewish interests..

“Diana sees it as good preparation for the time when the real children come.”

German girls being given black baby simulator dolls in preparation for early motherhood -

MK, “Baby simulators make it possible for girls to be ready be a mother so young?” 3 June 2016:

Eight Syker Real pupils yesterday experienced how it is to be a mother of an infant. Through Monday, they had to take care of the baby simulators - changing diapers and feeding included. - Photo: Ehlers

Suspiciously an elderly man looks at the girl who just wants to board the bus. She carries a small bundle in her arms. So young and already a mama?” He asked me how I could be [a mother] because of my age.” Zoé describes their encounter the previous day. The 15-year-old let the stranger know immediately. “This is not a baby in her arms, but just a doll.” Or more precisely, a baby simulator.

Eight Real pupils have since Thursday been a part of offspring “on time”. The girls from the ninth grade attend on Mondays to the life-sized puppets, computer-controlled to simulate the daily routine of an infant.

A chip on the wrist identifies the “right” mama, all their activities are recorded and evaluated at the end. Before starting the experiment, the group has worked intensively with the topic, watched a movie, and is at once busy with the “theoretical” aspects of the baby. Why is a child crying? What can and should you do? What is there to consider?

On Thursday, each student received her seven-pound junior. Some have previously never had a real baby in their arms, but with a newborn, it is “a bit difficult with the head,” Lea says. The head just always has to be supported by hand. But after a day that is already well learned.

The babies get correct name. And if Luke, Chris or Ryan after four days must be issued again, and they are returned to nameless baby simulators, it could well be emotional: Brunhilde Maskos has often experienced in the past that parting was clearly difficult for the girls .

Marie is grateful for the opportunity to learn how to deal responsibly with the potential reality of a baby. Diana sees it as good preparation for the time when the real children come. One thing all eight girls have in common is the desire to have children. There should be two at most. But after her experience with the electronic baby, Stephanie “wouldn’t be sad if there are three.”

What’s going on in the minds of young people when they are seen with their electronic appendages? A “strange mixture of pride and embarrassment” says Neele. After a few hours a bond to the small companion is established.

I have learned a trick for a very likely way to find an image of a beautiful woman in an Internet image search: search the name “Dagmara.”

Chances are that you’ll come up with a beauty.

But this time the story came up first, i.e., of a beautiful Dagmara having committed suicide for having been bullied, probably by jealous girls of other ethnicities and races. The price of gratuitous jealousy is a terrible one; and females can be particularly vicious.

You might ask me, “what was Dagmara doing in Cornwall?” and I would answer that Dagmaras should not be in The U.K. in any great number. That if her kind were there in smaller numbers that the genetic threat may not have risen to such hostility.

I would add, sarcastically with regard to liberalism, that “racial classifications are not working hypotheses that allow the security of accountability to a just and historically coherent human ecology, agency and warrant, no.” I would add just as sarcastically in the other direction, the conventional racialist direction, “no, they are a fact of natural struggle, survival of the fittest” ...

That does bring to mind another right-wing whipping boy - their crusade against anti-bullying. Yes, isn’t bullying a wonderful thing, we all need that school of hard knocks ad nauseam - survival of the jealous and ugly, er, “the fittest.” ... “those ‘leftist’ social justice warriors just don’t appreciate realty.”

That right wing “naturalness” compounds the dilemma that defending Dagmara places before those of us who might care; a dilemma placed before us by right-wing perfidy:

We can subject her to performance requirements of liberal Darwinism and YKW - “see how terrible ‘racism’ (accountability to human ecology) is? We need to mix people even more because its just, you know, best for everyone; whatever.” And there is the other option for a Polish girl such as Dagmara, of course - she can find security and fellowship with those who embrace the ideology of Adolf Hitler.

Thanks Right Wing!

DT, “Polish girl, 16, found dead at school after complaints of racist bullying after moving to Cornwall”, 18 May 2016:

A Polish teenager who was found dead at her school had complained about racist bullying on a website linked to young suicides after moving to Cornwall with her family.

Dagmara Przybysz, 16, originally from Poland, had complained about suffering from racism at school on the Ask.fm site two years ago.

Police and paramedics were called to Pool Academy in Pool, Redruth, Cornwall, on Tuesday at 2.15pm where the student was pronounced dead at the scene.

         
A lethal instrument to all of Europe by dint of Merkel’s ideology & policies

SocialTechnologies.com: “Germany’s Jeopardy: Could the Immigrant Influx ‘End European Civilization”?

- FRANK SALTER, Posted on 06/01/2016

Audio version 

Outline:
Introduction: Dire predictions
Social conflict
More crime
Reduced welfare
Greater ethnic inequality
Racialized politics
Reduced civil liberties
Benefits? Arguments for open borders
Conclusion: Jeopardy. Will Europe Survive?

Introduction: Dire predictions

My name is Frank Salter. I’m an Australian political ethologist, meaning that includes biological approaches when studying society and politics. I’ve spent much of my career researching at a Max Planck Institute in Germany, as well as teaching there and elsewhere in Europe and the United States. One of my research areas is ethnic solidarity and conflict and how this affects democratic welfare states.

In this talk I discuss the dire predictions that have been made about the massive influx of immigrants and refugees still entering Germany and other European countries from the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Many then fan-out, crossing Europe’s old national borders which are no longer regulated due to the Shengen Agreement. Some believe this could end European civilization, despite the outpouring of goodwill and hospitality shown by millions of Germans and other Europeans. These predictions have not only come from anti-immigrant ideologues but from moderate politicians.

An example is Tony Abbott, until recently Australian prime minister. Speaking in London, Abbott called on Europe to close its borders to avoid a “catastrophic error”. He declared that protecting the borders will “require some force; it will require massive logistics and expense; it will gnaw at our consciences – yet it is the only way to prevent a tide of humanity surging through Europe and quite possibly changing it forever.”

Curiously, neither Abbott nor the other commentators explain why the influx would be so damaging. The same is true of Angela Merkel’s argument for opening the borders. Where was the sober and transparent assessment of costs and benefits?

In this talk I attempt such an assessment, by reviewing research on the way that ethnic diversity tends to increase social conflict and crime, undermine welfare, exacerbate ethnic inequality, racialize politics and erode civil liberties. I then compare these costs with the benefits of mass Third World immigration asserted
by Angela Merkel and her supporters.

Social conflict

Recent tragic events, including the attacks in Paris, make terrorism appear the most obvious and immediate threat. The overwhelming majority of incomers are Muslims. Though most Muslims are not terrorists, many terrorists are Muslims. In general, rising ethnic diversity increases the chance that one minority or another will oppose the government’s foreign policy. Tragedy results if even a small number of disaffected individuals adopt violence.

However, terrorism is not the main harm likely to arise from the present immigration. The main effect will be to fracture the psychological bond of nationality, leaving citizenship a hollowed-out legalism. That is because rising diversity is associated not only with violence such as terrorism and civil war, but with a general loss of social cohesion. But let us begin with violence.

Data from numerous studies show that the more ethnically diverse a society the greater the risk of conflict and, conversely, the more difficult it is to forge unity. Civil conflict is less likely in more homogeneous societies. Academic researchers have attempted to quantify the risk.

In the 1990s a global study by Rudolf Rummel at the University of Hawaii measured how 109 variables contributed to collective violence of the extreme variety – guerrilla and civil war – between 1932 and 1982; that’s a 50 year period. He found that one fifth of the variation in collective violence was caused by just one variable, the number of ethnic groups within the society. Conflict was made more intense when the antagonistic parties had different religions. [ii] That finding is obviously relevant to the present situation where Muslims are flooding into a largely Christian and secular Europe.

A study of contemporary societies by Finnish sociologist Tatu Vanhanen examined ethnic conflict defined more broadly to include discrimination, ethnic parties and interest groups, as well as ethnic violence and civil war. Vanhanen used evolutionary theory to hypothesize that diversity would cause conflict to rise. Among the 176 societies he studied, Vanhanen found that in 2010 two thirds of global variation in ethnic conflict was explained by ethnic diversity.[iii] In other words, much of the difference between united peaceful countries and those riven by ethnic conflict is the latters’ ethnic diversity.

A related effect of diversity is lowered cooperation and “social capital”, the extent to which people support each other. As heterogeneity grows, participation in clubs and volunteer work falls. People become more isolated and less trustful. The effect is strongest in local neighbourhoods where people experience different ethnic groups.[iv] In other words, it is not ignorance or isolation that cause ethnic discord, but contact with other cultures, including foreigners entering a homeland territory in large numbers.

German governments should be aware of the tendency of ethnic diversity to cause social conflict because that tendency has been studied in German research institutions. For example, ethologist Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, a professor at the Max Planck Society, and colleagues such as Johan van der Dennen at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, have for decades studied the effects of cultural mixing on ethnocentrism and xenophobia in mass anonymous societies. Both have warned that large scale mixing of different ethnicities reduces social stability and risks domestic peace.

Some of the research I’ve been discussing was inspired by evolutionary theory. This is an important approach long excluded from the social sciences. Human psychology evolved in the context of ethnically homogeneous groups. From this perspective the diversity now being imposed by modern elites is unnatural on the evolutionary time scale. That unnatural level of diversity is responsible for some of the conflict, according to evolutionary theory. Further confirmation of this evolutionary hypothesis is the finding that genetic diversity, as distinct from cultural diversity, correlates with social conflict. Since ethnic groups are pools of genetic similarity,[v] mixing such pools increases genetic variation within a society and, according to new global research, causes greater social conflict.[vi]

Stronger causes than genetic diversity are cultural, economic and historical factors, which help explain the surge of goodwill that Germans, Swedes and other Europeans showed Syrian refugees in 2015. But these factors can fluctuate greatly in the short term, while it can take many generations for genetic variation to fall.

More crime

Crime is social conflict in which the aggressor breaks the law. The track record of crime committed by non-Western immigrants to Europe is not reassuring.

A disturbing trend in France, which has Europe’s largest Islamic population, is the growth of no-go areas where even police dare not venture except in force. In addition in France and Britain there are occasional riots so violent and extensive that police lose control. These periods of mass conflict amount to uprisings.

The trend is for parallel societies to be established as the immigrant populations from less compatible cultures segregate themselves and new generations come of age. Generous welfare and multiculturalism exacerbate immigrant crime, which often increases in the second generation.

Between 1997 and 2013 large scale organized sexual exploitation of white girls took place in the English town of Rotherham in South Yorkshire, predominantly by Muslim Pakistani men. Up to 1,400 girls as young as 12 years of age were raped and sex-trafficked by multiple men.

Sweden and Denmark also offer a glimpse of what Germany can expect from the intake of unselected immigrants coming from incompatible cultures. In Sweden the majority of those charged with murder, rape and robbery are immigrants, despite immigrants numbering only 16 per cent of the population.[vii]

In Denmark immigrants from several countries commit crimes at a much higher rate than do ethnic Danes. This is especially true of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa.[viii] The greatest frequency of law-breaking was shown by the children of non-Western immigrants. Those aged 15-19 were overrepresented by 93 per cent, those aged 20-29 by 130 percent, and those aged 30-39 were overrepresented by 135 per cent. Ethnic Danes were underrepresented for all these age categories.

For Germany the data are less accessible but an unconfirmed report indicates that in 2011 asylum-seekers committed 3.3 per cent of all crimes, many times their proportion of the German population.[ix] By 2014 that already-high figure had jumped to 7.7 per cent of all crime. In the same period, the number of assaults and shoplifting across Germany more than doubled.

Reduced welfare

Obviously the influx of millions of poor people will strain welfare budgets. Europeans who have paid social security insurance their whole working lives will soon be supporting health, housing, unemployment and age benefits for millions who have never contributed. If the influx is not stopped, this will be the start of an astronomical transfer of wealth, while the system survives.

It might not survive long because most European governments are already heavily in debt and managing heavy welfare expenditures. In 2013, the last year for which data are available, general government gross debt in Austria was 81% of GDP, in Belgium 104%, France 92%, Germany 77%, Italy 128%, Spain 92%, and the United Kingdom 87%.[xi]

In Sweden government debt is only about 39% of GDP but its immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are straining the budget. These immigrants make up about 16% of the population but take as much as 58% of welfare payments, representing a large wealth transfer from ethnic Swedes.[xii] That transfer is a bad investment because about 48% of working-age immigrants are unemployed. Even after 15 years in the country, 40% are not working.

But welfare is still more fragile than these figures indicate.

Research conducted at Germany’s Max Planck Society indicates that ethnic change due to immigration will change taxpayers’ motivation, reducing their willingness to support welfare. Comparison of welfare systems around the world shows that as ethnic diversity rises, welfare tends to decline.[xiii]

Not only welfare declines but any services relying on contributions to public goods. That includes cooperation with police, charities, medical and military authorities.

Foreign aid, which is international welfare, is even more fragile. Foreign aid is strongly and negatively correlated with donor countries’ ethnic diversity.[xiv]

The irony could not be more cruel. By accepting large numbers of people of non-Western cultures, who are seeking to benefit from generous welfare, European countries not only risk losing domestic welfare for natives and immigrants alike, but reducing their foreign aid to immigrants’ homelands. It’s a lose-lose strategy.
Greater ethnic inequality

Ethnic inequality, a major cause of civil conflict, will increase as a result of the present influx. When an ethnic group fails to achieve income equality down the generations, the effect is deeply ingrained resentment and a low threshold for civil unrest. That might be why second generation immigrants often show higher criminality than their parents.

Once again there is no excuse for ignorance because Germany has its own native-born instructor on the causes of ethnic inequality. Thilo Sarrazin was an SPD politician and, until 2010, board member of the Deutschebank, the year he published a book titled Germany abolishes itself: How we risk losing our country.[xv] Sarrazin documented the slow pace of integration of Turkish immigrants into German society and economy, their disproportionate reliance on government welfare and their higher fertility. He found that slow assimilation was caused by the Islamic religion and lower educational outcomes were caused by persistent ethnic tradition.[xvi] When he wrote this, Angela Merkel was already German Chancellor. She condemned Sarrazin and endorsed his removal from the Deutschebank board, an omen of her 2015 radicalism and intolerance.

It is certain that the present influx will escalate ethnic stratification in Germany and in Europe. If this were only due to poor languages skills and low education, the inequality could close within a generation or two (still an appalling assault on the receiving societies). But many of the immigrants come from populations with long records of poor educational and economic performance, likely to result in chronic ethnic stratification reminiscent of despotic empires by importing a new underclass, Germany and Europe are abolishing their egalitarian national societies.

Racialized politics

An open door policy is advocated by self-proclaimed anti-racists such as Angela Merkel and her allies on the far left. The “anti-fa” protesters who shout-down PEGIDA and other conservatives take it for granted that borders should be open to all comers. But one certain outcome of the new immigrant influx is the further racialization of politics and growing demographic pressure on ethnic Europeans. Racialization will take the form of sectarianism, ethnic parties, multiculturalism, school indoctrination, political correctness and affirmative action – discrimination meant to equalise outcomes. Racialized politics is already a fact of life in diverse societies such as Britain, France, the United States and Australia.

Throughout recorded history societies controlled immigration, especially when it involved large numbers. Angela Merkel’s and Francois Hollande’s open door policy is a reckless social experiment that is already inducing compassion fatigue. Nationalist and anti-immigration parties are rising in Austria, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, and Switzerland.

The ethnic inequality discussed earlier is an important cause of racialization. By the second generation poorer immigrant groups, especially those that are culturally or racially visible, become susceptible to radicalization by ideologies that legitimate grievances. These ideologies help immigrants rationalise their low socioeconomic status and sense of alienation by making them out to be victims of white racism. The ideologies are acquired from universities, schools, the media, social workers, politicians and ethnic leaders.

Victimhood ideologies also produce guilt and fear in whites, by linking their ethnic identities – and only theirs – to extremism and fascism.[xviii] This is unfair because white majorities are typically less ethnocentric than minorities.

The myth of minority victimhood conditions the white majority to accept replacement-level immigration. These doctrines have been influential in English-speaking countries and much of Western Europe since the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.

Meanwhile in Germany immigration politics has started in the non-democratic mode typical of ethnic politics throughout the West. No referendum is planned to give Germans a choice concerning their destiny. With minor exceptions, citizens do not even have the option of voting against the open door policy in a normal election, because the major parties support open borders. Germans who wish to have a say in immigration policy must vote for new parties that have not yet been captured by special interests.

Reduced civil liberties

Rising diversity undermines civil rights. Wherever the founding ethnic group has lost control of immigration, governments come under pressure from the political left and their minority clients to suppress “hate speech”, which can include statements of opinion and fact. The limiting of free speech also precedes and helps cause the rise of replacement level immigration. But certainly it is also an effect of diversity.

Restrictions of speech have a chilling effect on public debate. The millions now flooding into Germany and Europe are beneficiaries of this repression. Their presence will only increase pressure on government to crack down on restless natives. The underlying reason for the crackdown will be the rise of massive endemic social conflict, wholly predictable and indeed predicted by social scientists.

Benefits? Arguments for open borders

Are these costs outweighed by the benefits proposed by Angela Merkel and her supporters? Six main arguments have been advanced to persuade Germans to accept the influx.

1. The first argument is Merkel’s claim that Germany and Europe are morally obliged to settle genuine refugees. There is obviously a moral duty to help but the argument that refugees must be settled in Europe fails for two simple reasons. Firstly, many of the incomers are not refugees but economic immigrants. Secondly, the heavy costs imposed by the influx on native Germans means that a moral policy must optimise the two sides’ interests, not maximize immigrant welfare at the expense of the host society. After all, the first duty of governments, especially in democracies, is to protect their constituents. Germany and the EU could be helping refugees in or near their own countries.

2. The second argument is Merkel’s claim that Germany will benefit by throwing off its Nazi legacy once and for all. This is a despicable argument because Germans are innocent of genocide, unless one accepts the Nazi doctrine of collective racial guilt. The opposite effect is more likely. Vilification of ethnic Germans could intensify because Merkel has launched a new era of racialized politics in which exponents of mass Third World immigration will use any victimhood narrative to silence the majority.

3. The third argument was stated by the German Interior Minister in mid September 2015.[xix] He claimed that the government had no choice but to accept any number of refugees because Article 16a, paragraph 1, of the German constitution, the Grundgesetz, states that “Persons persecuted on political grounds shall have the right of asylum.” This is a strictly legalistic argument because, as we have seen, there is no moral duty to settle large numbers of refugees in Germany. So let’s look more closely at the law. Paragraph 2 of Article 16a of the Grundgesetz states that paragraph 1 does not apply to persons entering the Federal Republic “from a member state of the European Communities”.[xx] The overwhelming majority of refugees entering Germany have come via other EU states. Germany was entitled to prevent them entering but the Merkel government suspended the Dublin Regulation, which requires asylum seekers to be returned to the European country of first arrival.[xxi] How could Germany have accepted this EU law in the first place if it contradicted the German constitution? If, on the other hand, the Dublin Regulation reflects article 16a of the constitution, how could it be so easily suspended?[xxii] Clearly Germany and the EU can legally protect their borders. It is Merkel and other EU leaders who allowed the influx, not any law.

4. The fourth argument was advanced by Merkel and Mercedes CEO Dieter Zetsch, who maintained that the refugees will make productive workers. Zetsch stated: “They could, like the guest workers from decades ago, help us preserve and improve our prosperity. For Germany cannot any more fill the jobs available.” This is utopian speculation that runs counter to precedent and knowledge of cultural differences. More likely, Germany will be burdened by immigrant communities suffering high unemployment and concentrated in low productivity unskilled jobs.

5. The fifth argument is even more radical. It was stated by demographer Stephan Sievert, of the Berlin Institute for Population and Development. Sievert optimistically stated that Germany’s population was at last growing, after decades of stagnation.[xxiii] Sievert does not admit that his implied policy entails the rapid demographic replacement of the German ethnic family, in effect cultural genocide by stages. If the German people were given the opportunity to vote on this policy, perhaps a majority would agree with German author Botho Strauss, who declared that he prefers to live among his own people even if they are falling in numbers, rather than live in an imposed cultural mix.[xxiv]

6. A sixth argument has been offered by Merkel, in her New Year’s address for 2016. It is the open border mantra, that immigration is generally good. Merkel stated that “countries have always benefited from successful immigration, both economically and socially”.[xxv] It is a danger sign when highly educated people resort to tautologies, such as deducing that successful immigration is successful. In fact immigrant societies – America, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, France, and others – are all well down the track of turning their founding cultures into minorities without ever offering them a democratic choice. Merkel also followed the usual pro-immigration line by accusing her critics of “coldness or even hatred”, implying that she is motivated by warmer emotions. And she foreshadowed a new inclusive definition of what it means to be German, which is a prudent move for someone intent on demographic transformation. Omitted from this latest statement, but likely to follow, are other elements of the pro-immigration mantra, such as diversity is strength, or German identity is the same as citizenship, or school children must be educated in tolerance, or immigrants rescue German culture from its white-bread impoverishment. These arguments and assertions are completely normal in Western societies whose political classes have opened them to mass immigration.

These six alleged benefits of massive unselected immigration are typical of the intellectual level of open border arguments elsewhere in Western countries. That such shallow and sometimes mendacious rhetoric is uttered by intelligent individuals would be impossible without their near monopoly of media access resulting from the ideological intolerance that has suppressed open debate for decades.

Conclusion: Jeopardy. Will Europe Survive?

The evidence just reviewed indicates that dire warnings are not overstated. The ethnic transformation now being inflicted on Germany and the rest of Europe by its political class, if continued, will severely damage European culture and way of life. The opposed arguments are flimsy and fail entirely to address the perceived risks. Commentators are not exaggerating then they warn that European civilization, the result of three millennia of cultural evolution, is in jeopardy.

Hopefully common sense will prevail and journalists and politicians will listen respectfully to the people’s concerns and aspirations. Perhaps Merkel and Hollande will recover from their moral mania and free themselves from special interests long enough to deign the flood to recede. Perhaps the EU will formulate a conservative immigration policy, one that does not cater mainly to the interests of immigrants, minorities and the corporate sector but also respects Europeans by preserving their identities, cultures, domestic peace, equality and national cohesion. It is more likely that voters will solve the problem than Europe’s intellectually corrupt political class, and that new parties will be granted the power to reclaim national sovereignty from the failed EU project. In that case the EU will collapse, as individual nations move to protect themselves from the Shengen Agreement, now become a mortal threat instead of a promise. That could form the basis for a new trans-European movement that protects the identities and ways of life of individual nations and Europe as a whole.

But until now these considerations have been foreign to Angela Merkel and her supporters. She sells her open door policy as humanitarian. But in reality this is a cruel policy likely to produce suffering across Germany and Europe. She has failed to consider the interests of individual European nations or of Europe as a whole. Europe’s political class has, in effect, embraced the most aggressive form of multiculturalism, in which the establishment forms an alliance with minorities to dominate the majority.

The suffering the open door policy will bring – the inequality, including the special evil of ethnic stratification, the collapse of welfare, the crime, the slums and no-go areas, the degradation of women, the racialization of politics, the decline in wages, the loss of national cohesion, the growing sense of loss and alienation among Germans and immigrants alike, the accelerated replacement of Europeans in their ancient homelands, the constriction of civil rights and the pervasive chaos – all of this will last for generations.

Merkel is doubly cruel because she is stripping developing societies of their more educated and industrious people. The inevitable fall in European foreign aid will hurt poor countries around the world, caused by the stagnation of European economies and decline in social capital.

A responsible policy would resemble the British strategy of helping refugees in or near their own countries while restricting their immigration to Europe, though it should be noted that in Britain non-refugee immigration is out of control.

For Germany the situation is more threatening due to its toxic political culture, despite its present low level of ethnic diversity. The country’s chances of recovery – which means adopting a sustainable immigration policy – depend on how the following questions are answered by events.

How long will it take for the present reaction to become a powerful political force?  How long before Germany’s leadership feels the wrath of a people enraged at the prospect of the transformation of their country? And should the reaction become intense, will citizens remain mobilised long enough to build political organisations sufficiently powerful to correct the situation? Will they be able to inflict political censure on Merkel and the political class so stark that it neutralises the incentives offered by the establishment? Will they be able to do so in the teeth of relentless attacks from the mainstream media and educational establishments? Will they stay focused long enough to renegotiate EU arrangements or withdraw Germany from them? Will they persist long enough to push through constitutional amendments that define Germany as the homeland of the German people and allow legal redress against leaders who attempt demographic replacement?

Whether or not there is a pause in the influx, Germans and other Europeans should educate themselves about the deep causes of this disaster and how to prevent its recurrence.

       
You must not allow for anything remotely like this, Europe. Your very EGI are at stake of permanent extinction.

One of the best litmus tests as to whether or not one is being too liberal, too promiscuous with regard to sex, is whether or not you need to use a condom. If you don’t know someone well enough to be sure that you are not going to get a disease or have an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe you ought to get to know them better before having sex with them. If you really like someone and if they are really worth it, you are not likely to have to use condoms at all. And would you really like to use them?

Subtitle: don’t forget to forget your condom. A.I.D.S. is a most beautiful disease, generally targeting people who deserve to die for their bullying, irresponsible, reckless treatment of sex.

Particularly when the bounds of EGI are unguarded, the need to treat sex carefully, as an act which can endorse or undermine our EGI, becomes all the more important. It will be used by our enemies in psy-ops, such as the profusion of interracial porn. It will be used by our enemies to promote liberal politics, empower those horribly destructive to our interests and to dis-empower those thoughtful of our interests - those concerned with our people in our broad pattern. It will be used by our antagonists to outbreed our race, including outbreeding some of our most qualitatively differentiated genetic capital. As de facto safeguards of liberalism, they have their go-to “moral arguments” to distract us from the moral re-ordering of our people.

After marriage, the condom is taken by liberalism as one of its lines of defense. Don’t be fooled, there’s no substitute for the White class and its bounds. This holds your freedom in sacrament and in celebration that gives our people life and health as opposed to destruction.

There can be a time to be Dionysian, promiscuous for some who choose to be - i.e., among our own people - but that time is when the borders or our EGI are secured and members accounted for. Until then, good riddance to those who treat our genetic treasures irresponsibly; it couldn’t happen to worse, more deserving people of a miserable fate.

Don’t you just feel so sorry for her…

Always remember, er, forget your condom. If you think that you have to use one, you’d better get to know who you are screwing around with a little better - maybe a lot better.

Daily Beast, ‘Porn World in Panic Over Charlie Sheen’s HIV Diagnosis’, Nov 20, 2015:

‘There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…’

Well-known for his porn star companions, Charlie Sheen’s recent admission to being HIV-positive has sent a ripple of fear through the adult industry. There’s no protocol in place for this. There are no records of who Sheen’s hired, thus no quarantine list for the porn stars he’s been sexually active with.

In the semi-regulated world of adult film, when an HIV scare is made known everyone asks, “Did I perform with the person who tested positive?” Fear turns to panic if it was a close call, relief if it wasn’t. That’s only after a name is released—or patient zero comes forward. Production shuts down, quarantine lists are drawn up for first generation, second, third, and so on. An ideal “who’s performed with whom” list chronicling before and after known exposure is made available. Some call this “the honor system.”

Unfortunately, those outside the business don’t always play by the industry’s self-regulated rules. Needless to say, former Two and a Half Men actor Charlie Sheen plays by his own rules.

“There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…like who have I had sex with that has had sex with them, or have I had sex with a girl who has had sex with Charlie?” says Alana Evans, 2015 AVN Hall of Fame recipient. “Maybe we can get Charlie to put together a list of all the porno girls he’s had sex with so the rest of us can make sure we’re okay? That’d be great.”

In case you missed it, Sheen admitted on the Today Show that he was HIV-positive, and has known of his diagnosis for four years. He also alleged “all sexual partners have known” about his condition with “no exception.”

While some are applauding Sheen for his bravery in coming forward, there’s speculation amongst industry insiders as to why now? Some credit the 27-year-old blonde who spoke anonymously to the Daily Mail with forcing Sheen’s hand. She estimates the A-lister had sex with at least 50 porn stars since his diagnosis and “fears the porn industry could face an ‘HIV epidemic’ as a result.”

‘There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…’

Sheen’s latest role as victim is a bit hard to swallow. He paints a vivid portrait of his suffering at the mercy of his addictions, depression, and multi-million dollar extortions from ex-lovers. Even so, that his two ex-goddesses are contradicting his story raises questions concerning his credibility.

Ex-goddess Bree Olson, who dated and lived with Sheen for seven months in 2011, appeared on The Howard Stern Show to claim she had no idea about her ex’s condition, and claimed she learned about his HIV-positive status “right along with everyone else.”

“He never said anything to me,” Olson added. “I was his girlfriend. I lived with him. We were together. We had sex almost every day for a year—with lambskin condoms.”

Now lambskin condoms—incredibly thin condoms are billed as providing the closest thing to not using condoms at all—only guard against pregnancy and do not prevent the transmission of HIV. Olson told Stern that while she wanted to use standard Trojan condoms, lambskin was Sheen’s condom of choice.

While Olson tested negative for HIV, in Sheen’s home state of California it’s a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison for a person with HIV to have unprotected sex with the intent to infect someone who’s unaware of their status. Though that is incredibly hard to prove in criminal court, California also has a misdemeanor charge carrying up to six months in prison for willfully exposing others to HIV.

No thoughtful person makes AIDS prevention a cause.

Of the hundreds, or thousands, of women who made themselves available to Magic Johnson, he said: “I tried to accommodate as many as possible. Some of them were unbelievable.”

This liberalism, this irresponsibility to our EGI, is not what we’re here to defend. With unspeakable irresponsibility and selfish uncaring (to say the least), they bring into the world behavior and genetics destructive to any reflective people - especially our European people.

Africa is one of the only places where AIDS is on the rise. That is good. Their population needs to be drastically reduced and its increase, let alone interbeeding with others, needs to be thwarted.

Magic, er, E.T. says, “Remember to not use a condom. AIDS is a beautiful thing.” It kills those irresponsible and reckless with our EGI.

Because not all merit defense, we need an order to secure those who do. 14

“No glove no love”, so the motto of condom proponents goes - a condom being referred to as a “glove”, in their liberal slang.

With “Sheen preferring ‘lambskin condoms”, in particular, an older slogan comes to mind as particularly apt to capture the refrain of those who would contest their liberalism - they are treating those who engage in reckless and socially destructive behavior “with kid gloves” - that is to say, they are protecting them too much and therefore enabling bad behavior in the long term.

Handle with kid gloves

Meaning

Handle a situation, or a person or an object, delicately and gingerly.

Origin

Kid gloves are, of course, gloves made from the skin of a young goat. I say ‘of course’ but, in fact, when they were first fashioned in the 18th century they were more often made from lambskin, as that was easier to come by. They were clearly not intended for use when you were pruning the hedge and wearing kid gloves was the sartorial equivalent of pale white skin, that is, it indicated that the wearer was rich enough to indulge in a life of genteel indoor idleness. The earliest mentions of kid gloves are from England in the 1730s and the following is a typical report of a wealthy gentleman, laid out in his ‘Sunday best’, from Bagnall’s News, in The Ipswich Journal, December 1734:

The Corpse of Mr. Thorp, A Distiller in Soho, who died a few Days since, said to be worth £10000 was put into his Coffin, quilted within with white Sattin; and after several yards of fine Holland [best-quality linen] were wrapt about his Body… on his Head was a Cap of the same Holland tied with a white Ribbond; he has about his Neck two Yards of Cambrick; a Cambrick Handkerchief between his Hands, on which he had a pair of white Kid Gloves: and in this manner he lay in state some Days and was afterwards buried in Buckinghamshire.

At that time, kid gloves were viewed as rather ostentatious and only suitable for the nouveau riche - much as heavy gold chains might be viewed today.

What is behind Netanyahu’s “gesture” presented last Wednesday to German Chancellor Merkel?

In an ostensible gesture, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, proposed to relieve Nazi Germany ergo present day Germany of complete guilt for the holocaust.

Netanyahu suggested that at the point when Hitler met with the Palestinian Mufti in November 1941, that he did not intend to exterminate the Jews but had a sincere plan to merely expel them to Palestine.

Netanyahu continued, that when the Mufti refused to agree, Hitler asked what then should be done with the Jews? The Mufti responded, “burn them.” Netanyahu then claimed with that, that “the Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and a partner and adviser to Eichmann and Hitler for the execution of this plan.”

..................

Most people would be satisfied with putting Netanyahu’s rendition aside for the obvious absurdities that arise to its credibility from the outset. Why would Hitler seriously expect the Palestinians to agree to allow Jews, or any non-Palestinians (but especially Jews), to immigrate to his country? That is, how could it have been a serious proposal by Hitler? The answer is that it could not have been, and it wasn’t. It was a bluff, a typical ploy of Hitler’s: “well, we tried.”

To a lesser extent it was also an occasion to discuss with the Palestinians how they might cooperate with Nazi Germany. However, the idea that Hitler seriously sought council from the Mufti and followed his lead in regard to how to deal with Jews is risible.

There is all kinds of evidence that Nazi Germany, in accordance with Hitler’s designs, had already commenced with killing Jews as a solution the Jewish problem as they saw it; and had no problem with killing, exterminating Jews; there is even evidence of an emergent plan that regarding the Jews that he did allow to escape to Palestine, that they were facilitated in going there upon the agreement with Muslims that they would be taken care of there, in subsequent cooperation between Nazi Germany and Muslims to make sure that they could never become ensconced in the area.

..................

No serious ethno-nationalist is accepting Netanyahu’s dealing of the card of Hitler’s absolution at anywhere near face value.

There are a few relevant exceptions, and it is for their compliant reaction to divide and conquer that Netanyahu plays this card.

1. The philo-semitic counter-jihadists who might be looking to see Israeli actions against Palestinians as more valid than previously understood. They are already in the tank for Israel and Jews, as completely innocent victims and scapegoats. They seek to gain Israel and whatever part of liberal Europe that they can against Islam alone, in perhaps a desperate hope by their non-Jewish component, that Israel will care enough to sincerely help. That is a joke and the plainest level of divide and conquer, which the Gates of Vienna and the Geert Wilders ilk has already bought into.

2. Some foolish Naziphile’s who are unfortunately associated with White Nationalism will take the bait in seeking to absolve Hitler from any responsibility for the holocaust; what is more bizarre is that some of these types tend to hope that Russia will be the great White hope of WN. The Russian/Jewish coalition will exploit this delusional hope that it might cooperate with White Nationalism, while doing all it can to prohibit racial nationalism; let alone allowing for the embrace of those who would resurrect Hitler, the arch enemy of its “Great War” - a war which its entire nation knows expended 25 million and which, to this day, would view such resurgence of German Nazism as its greatest threat, were it not so overly prepared for that contingency: hence, why it probably is that they allow Netanyahu some freeplay with that card - in order to keep Russian and Eastern European people under threat.

3. Merkel and liberals of her ilk whose career, power and license have underpinnings in German guilt are the third category who might respond at face value to Netanyahu’s ploy. Hence, her characteristic response being the opposite - that “no, no, Germany was fully responsible for the holocaust.”  

Getting these three groups to react in an overcompensating manner will invoke responses from other national players that can put Netanyahu’s divide strategy into fuller effect.The overcompensating response invoked in these groups would tend to highlight and align some of the normal German ethno-nationalist positions with a more Naziphilic position, which will undermine and destabilize Merkel’s base by forcing her to distance herself further into her overcompensatingly liberal position in order to maintain her liberal support base. That will then cause few more of the normal ethno-nationalists to display, in frustration, a more forthrightly Nazistic position - nowadays a weak position, as it is limited of itself; divisive not only against German liberals; but normal German ethno-nationalists, who are the authentic opposition to both Merkel and Netanyahu.

                          
While Merkel looks like a deer caught in the headlights, Netanyahu does not look the least bit concerned, does he? He looks upon Merkel with dismissive contempt, as if to say, “do you seriously think you can do anything about it, piss-ant?”

Netanyahu knew that Merkel would never respond in an ethnonationalist way, in anything but an obsequious, liberal way.

Merkel has already obliged by missing what would be an opportunity for a normal ethno-nationalists to say, “thank you for at least conceding that Germany, especially present day Germany, is not fully responsible for what happened in WW2 and was not, even then, some sort of ex-nihilo source of evil, but had an existential conflict with Jews; that was confirmed by the fact that other peoples had highly analogous difficulties with Jews, which even Nazi Germany was willing to discuss and negotiate to some extent. Not only is it clear that Nazi Germany viewed Jewry as a mortal enemy for plain reasons; it is time for Israel and Jewry to stop pretending to be the sheerly innocent victims and light of the world; the time has long since past when subsequent generations of Germans, let alone the rest of Europe as well, should be subject to the blackmail, extortion and bribes of Israel for a war that took the form of a will to kill those who were seen as the enemy, a mortal threat of a people; in the same kind of war that had been conducted by Israel/Jews themselves, so many times, ranging from those chronicled in the Old Testament - e.g., in The Book of Esther that you quoted before U.S. Congress - to the genocidal crimes of Soviet Jewry just prior to World War II - mass exterminations by Jews which Hitler saw as part and parcel of the existential threat he sought to protect Germans from.”

Netanyahu knows her and he knows she won’t say that. She would be taken out of power in the moment she spoke that way. While there may be an aspect of restraint in Merkel’s response, in that she cares that Germans not overcompensate to theirs and other Europeans’ detriment (including for the fact that Jews might just do some nasty things against the German people if she were too flagrant), given that she, herself, has already colluded by setting the worst in motion, that mitigation of potential recrimination is clearly a subservient motivation - she is obviously not overly concerned with the E.G.I. of Germans and other Europeans.

Her concern must be some combination of maintaining her power and some ideals which she holds to be more important than German and other European people. For her ideals, Netanyahu views her with the contempt of a pissant. By pushing her into an ever more compromised liberal position he furthers his interest directly by the dissolution of the German people and any threat of their organized response to what is being done to them by Israel and by Jews more broadly.

By highlighting neo-Nazi efforts to legitimize Hitler, he puts both her and German ethnonationalism in a weak position - forcing her to retrench in her liberal position domestically, less able to compromise against infighting with emergent nationalism, especially displays of ‘Nazism”; while there is only so-far that Hitler advocacy can go abroad. If it does gain any momentum, it will lead into conflict with other European nations - especially Eastern European - and fully act-into the divide and conquer scenario which will already be taking form psychologically as a part of Eastern European and Russian reaction.

Still, Netanyahu does not view Putin with quite the same level of disregard. And it is not likely that Putin and Russia, at this point, are going to be highly threatened by the prospects of Nazi Germany soon re-emerging. Nevertheless, Russia’s people can be provoked and kept at bay, just as Jews are provoked by their own and kept at bay through fear of resurgent Nazism… It will be used to strengthen propaganda to alienate their people from European ethno-nationalists and from supporting their aims: These people are “Nazis”, “fascists”, “racists” and “already 25 million were lost in order to defeat them in ‘The Great War’ - we can never trust them….we must support their liberalization instead.”

As Eastern European nations, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland and more, are inclined to look incredulously upon that Russian “innocence” and resist being subsumed into Russia’s sphere of interest, Russia will be more inclined to allow those who go the way of Europe to be divided, fragmented against others, weakened to powerlessness by the immigration invasion. Russia will cynically allow for divide and conquer and they will try to expand their interests .. in all likelihood, developing closer ties with Israel and Jewish diaspora. That will put a significant damper on hopes of those in German, European and other White ethnonationalists who wish to treat Russia as the great White hope.

Yes, Netanyahu is hoping to divide Europe from Russia. But does the Russian leadership care? Probably not much. They probably have an understanding with Netanhayu. And the real divide and conquer is likely to be in regard to Eastern Europe: still predominantly White and with ethno-nationalistic motivation - with enough experience of Jews to be anti-Semitic, enough experience of Russian/Jewish imperialism to be resistant to its aggrandizement, and, of course, potentially provoked by the resurrections of Hitler so as not to be able to fully cooperate with those who would lord Hitler as the paragon of virtue - hence, Netanyahu’s reason to resurrect Hitler’s legitimacy, to get people talking in the provocative way of Hitler apologists so as to antagonize any cooperation with Russia, but even more-so, any cooperation with Eastern Europe.

In this way, Netanhayhu can attempt to broker a situation where the Jewish/Russian East and the Jewish/corporate West can divide-up Eastern Europe and put at bay the remaining, homogeneous White ethno-national nations and their cooperation to European resistance. Fortunately, it is not necessary for Eastern European ethno-nationalists to act-into Netanyahu’s divide and conquer.

The realistic potential for ethno-nationalist coalitions and regional coalitions are emerging to where the would-be Jewish/Russian brokers will be looked upon not as protectors against Nazism, not even as middle men, not even marginalized in their opinions, but those who will be subject to our will.

Word has it that Juncker is socially conservative and therefore does not relish the migrant crisis; but he is a businessman who is looking after business interests for himself, business constituents and to maintain his position as an EU representative of those interests.
                           
That is why he felt constrained to put across a plan to try to preserve the Schengen zone by diffusing responsibility among its members and (in his theory) that might dilute the impact of the migrants. 

An additional aspect to the psychology of his position is that he is from Luxembourg, one of the smallest European nations. One can imagine business persons from small countries finding the delay and tedium of having to go through border controls as they move in and out of a Luxembourg every 15 minutes an insufferable handicap.

Nevertheless, from a WN/ethnonationalist perspective, particularly until such time as the borders of the entire zone are secure from non-European imposition and those who are already here are drastically reduced in number by means of repatriation, the Schengen zone will have to give way to tighter national border controls.

From an ethnonationalist point of view, in any event, there has to be more national accountability to their own and to European people as a whole.

Is this the end of Schengen?

         

Sep 16 2015: In last week’s State of the Union speech, European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker referred to the Schengen Area – a border-free travel zone made up of 26 European countries – as “a unique symbol of European integration”. After Germany’s recent announcement that it would be “temporarily reintroducing border controls”, some say that unique symbol is in jeopardy.

A look back at the past 30 years since the agreement was signed can help clarify what exactly is at risk.

What is Schengen?

The Schengen Area is made up of 26 European countries that have removed border controls at their shared crossings. The agreement was signed in 1985 by five members of the EU, and came into force 10 years later. Following the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, the Schengen agreement became part of European law. That meant all new EU members had to sign up to it, although Britain and Ireland had already been given the right to opt out. As the map below shows, four non-EU countries – Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein – are also members of the area.

Why are people talking about the end of Schengen?

We are experiencing a global refugee crisis. Around the world, 60 million people have been forced to flee war, violence and human rights abuse – levels not seen since World War II. Hundreds and thousands of those people have attempted the often perilous journey to Europe in search of a better, safer life.

Some of them haven’t made it – while the image of Aylan Kurdi’s lifeless body on a beach in Turkey shocked the world, many more have died trying to get to Europe. According to figures from the International Organization for Migration, 2015 could end up being the deadliest on record.

Of those who do make it over, the majority have been heading to Germany. The country expects to take in 1 million asylum seekers by the end of the year, more than all other EU countries collectively received in 2014. It is in response to these huge numbers that Germany decided to re-impose its internal border controls. The country’s interior minister said the move aimed to “limit the current inflows to Germany and to return to orderly procedures when people enter the country”.

Some have been quick to emphasize the temporary nature of this decision. But with countries such as Austria and the Netherlands now following suit, others think Schengen’s days are numbered.

Has anything like this happened before?

The option for a country to temporarily reinstate border controls was actually built into the original agreement, as the European Commission pointed out last weekend: “The temporary reintroduction of border controls between member states is an exceptional possibility explicitly foreseen in and regulated by the Schengen Borders Code.”

In the past, countries have chosen to exercise that right. For example, in 2006 Germany reinstated border controls when it hosted the FIFA World Cup. France did the same in 2005, following the terrorist attacks in London. In what was perhaps a precursor of the troubles to come, during the post-Arab Spring mass migration of 2011, politicians in France and Italy called for deep reforms to the agreement.

So what’s different this time?

Even in Schengen’s early days, critics pointed to one big flaw: freedom of movement within the Schengen area only works if the common external borders are fortified. With many frontline countries such as Greece already experiencing crises of their own, the task of strengthening those external borders has become even tougher.

The stakes were raised this summer after a heavily armed terrorist suspect was apprehended on board a train travelling between three Schengen countries. The ease with which he had moved around the area prompted some to refer to Europe’s open-border policy as a terrorist’s paradise.

Perhaps more importantly, people’s attitudes within the area are starting to change. This recent crisis is just one in a long line of turbulent events for Europe these past months and years. Whether they are right to do so, some blame the union for these developments. While Schengen and the free movement of people might be at the core of the European project, for some that no longer seems worth fighting for. A poll back in July showed that the majority of western Europeans would like to see Schengen scrapped, and last year former French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for it to be “immediately suspended”.

But with so many people now displaced by conflict and violence, others argue that the European project – which has brought peace to a continent previously locked in war – has never been more important.

As plans to share out asylum seekers more equitably across the European Union make little progress, many will be closely watching the developments for hints of what it means for Schengen.