[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 27 July 2017 11:26.
However much of a taboo one is breaking by saying it, there is no cultural identity in a population without a stable ethnic composition
Visigrad Post, “Full speech of V. Orbán : Will Europe belong to Europeans?” 24 July 2017:
Viktor Orbán’s speech at the 28th Bálványos Summer Open University and Student Camp, 22 July 2017, Tusnádfürdő (Băile Tuşnad, Romania)
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: “First of all, I’d like to remind everyone that we started a process of collective thinking 27 years ago in Bálványosfürdő, a few kilometres from here. That is where we came to a realisation. Just think back: at that time, at the beginning of the nineties, most people – not only in Hungary, but also across the whole of Central Europe – thought that full assimilation into the Western world was just opening up to us again. The obvious approach was adjustment to that world: to in a way shed our skin and grow a new, fashionable Western skin. From this it followed that in our politics we would simply need to copy what they were doing in the West. Back then – 27 years, 28 years ago – we came together here, and we thought that we freedom fighters living on this side of the Iron Curtain could also have something valuable to say to a Europe which had by then been living in peace, freedom and prosperity for forty years. Back then we weren’t surrounded by television cameras, and our words commanded no attention whatsoever.
Now, however, they do. And if I were to name the most important event, the most important Hungarian and European event of the past year – the twelve months since our last meeting – I would say that it is the strengthening of the Visegrád Four. Although there was a presidential election in the United States, and not so long ago the French presidential and parliamentary elections swept away the entire French party system – which are both important things – I’m convinced that the most important development of the past year has been the Visegrád Four cooperation becoming closer than ever before. We can say that Warsaw, Prague, Bratislava and Budapest are speaking with one voice. This is a great achievement, as these are countries which are very different in their characters. Here we have the enthusiastic Poles, the ever-cautious Czechs, the sober Slovaks and the romantic Hungarians; and yet we are able to speak the same language. We can be truly proud of this.
It is customary for the Open University presentations to seek to give an account of the extent of change over the past year, also in a broader civilisational context. Certainly not everyone remembers that in 2009, after his election, President Obama made his first important speech abroad in the city of Cairo. This year the newly-elected US president delivered his first important speech abroad in the city of Warsaw. To illustrate the extent of the changes, it’s enough to quote a few sentences from the speech made by the American president in Warsaw. I’ll quote from it now:
“We have to remember […] that the defence of the West ultimately rests not only on means, but also on the will of its people to prevail and be successful and get what you have to have. […] Our own fight for the West does not begin on the battlefield. It begins with our minds, our wills and our souls. […] Our freedom, our civilization and our survival depend on these bonds of history, culture, and memory.”
He then went on to say: “So together let us all fight like the Poles: for family, for freedom, for country and for God.”
Ladies and Gentlemen,
These words would have been inconceivable anywhere in the Western world two years ago. This is the extent of the change that is taking place around us. This, perhaps, is the point at which I should greet Piotr Naimski and the Polish delegation led by him. He is the President of the Hungarian-Polish Parliamentary Group in Warsaw. Welcome, Dear Polish Friends.
The Intercept, “U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminally Outlaw Support for Boycott Campaign Against Israel”, 19 July, 2017:
The criminalization of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West. In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. The U.K. has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. In the U.S., governors compete with one another over who can implement the most extreme regulations to bar businesses from participating in any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements, which the world regards as illegal. On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech.
But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.
The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year:
The bill’s co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate’s more liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Maria Cantwell of Washington. Illustrating the bipartisanship that AIPAC typically summons, it also includes several of the most right-wing senators such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Marco Rubio of Florida.
“Donald Trump threatens net neutrality, says academic”
Internet neutrality and freedom of speech are under threat by Donald Trump’s administration, according to a QUT academic.
Matthew Rimmer from the Faculty of Law said that the Trump administration has been seeking to dismantle network neutrality rules as part of its deregulation agenda.
“There will be a massive online protest by a wide array of companies, including Amazon, Netflix, Shapeways, Kickstarter, Twitter and Reddit, along with organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union, Greenpeace and the American Library Association,” said Rimmer.
“July 12 2017 is a Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality in the US, an event responding to plans by the Federal Communications Commission under the leadership of President Donald Trump’s chair, Ajit Pai, to repeal government rules which established net neutrality.”
Network neutrality started out as a philosophical concept, developed by Professor Timothy Wu from Columbia University, to address discrimination by broadband service providers. It was designed to preserve a free and open internet by preventing broadband providers from blocking, throttling or slowing internet services.
It ensures consumer rights are not undermined by internet service providers and that they do not suffer a dystopia of slow lanes and fast-paid lanes on the internet.
It also helps ensure the internet is a free and open platform which supports innovation. In particular, it ensures that start-up companies and new market entrants have an equal playing field. Without such protections, internet service providers could use their role as gatekeepers to reinforce their monopolies.
“We have not seen such a massive online action since the protests against the Stop Online Piracy Act, in which Wikipedia and other online sites staged a blackout against draconian copyright laws,” Rimmer said.
However, while the United States debates network neutrality, Australia still has not had a proper conversation about network neutrality.
“The issue has been periodically raised in the context of debates over the nbn, media convergence and competition reform. There are, though, concerns about the speed of broadband services in Australia and the problem of the data drought,” said Rimmer.
“At a time at which it is modernising its media laws, Australia would benefit from the introduction of the principle of network neutrality. The public interest doctrine would boost consumer choice, competition and innovation in Australia.”
When false opposition forces you to imagine lyrics/text different than theirs and supply protest lyrics authentic to your interests:
Back in the days before Internet, decades before in fact, we young folks didn’t have much outlet for protest via the media - TV, movies, newspapers and magazines, book publishing (((all controlled))). Music, concerts and festivals were ostensible outlets of protest expression - and even they were so (((controlled))) by pervasive liberalism that I had to change lyrics in my head to de-liberalize them and make them properly aligned to my grievances. Neil Young’s “Alabama” is a classic example of a song that had righteous passion totally misdirected into liberalism. Lynard Skynard noticed it in their song “Sweet Home Alabama”, citing Young and his song “Alabama” directly for criticism. But it wasn’t only they who objected and I could not relate to their southern patriotism either. No, I had my own protest lyrics in mind - lyrics, wouldn’t you know, that I can’t even spell out today, this protest remains so forbidden by the powers-that-be and their do-gooders mulatto supremacist gate keepers: it goes to show HOW FAR we have NOT come in some ways - ridiculously, you can’t even say the N word:
“Alabama”, Neil Young - Lyrics
Oh Alabama N-lover
Banjos playing
through the broken glass
Windows down in Alabama.
See the old folks
tied in white ropes
Hear the banjo.
Don’t it take you down home?
Alabama N-lover, you got
the weight on your shoulders
That’s breaking your back.
Your Cadillac
has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
Oh Alabama N-lover.
Can I see you
and shake your hand.
Make friends down in Alabama.
I’m from a new land
I come to you
and see all this ruin
What are you doing Alabama N-lover?
You got the rest of the union
to help you along
What’s going wrong?
Neil did a bit better with the lyrics to “Southern Man”, particularly in the last stanza, although I don’t think Neil was looking at it from the same angle that I have… that’s my imagination supplying the protest angle once again.
Southern Man, Neil Young – Lyrics
Southern man
Better keep your head
Don’t forget
What your good book said
Southern change
Gonna come at last
Now your crosses
Are burning fast
Southern man
I saw cotton
And I saw black
Tall white mansions
And little shacks.
Southern man
When will you
Pay them back?
I heard screamin’
And bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?
Southern man
Better keep your head
Don’t forget
What your good book said
Southern change
Gonna come at last
Now your crosses
Are burning fast
Southern man
Lily Belle,
Your hair is golden brown
I’ve seen your black man
Comin’ round
Swear by God
I’m gonna cut him down!
I heard screamin’
And bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?
Neil Young’s politics are well off the mark; no need to belabor that, but I’d like to caution that anybody trafficking in the emotion of sadness as much as Neil Young has is promoting a neutering kind of propaganda in that very sadness - it’s better to veer in the direction of anger.
Now, a primary outlet for rebellion against political tyranny has been largely co-opted again, this time it is the (((alternative-k*ke er, alternative-right))) that’s doing much of the co-opting.
And unfortunately, they are putting their (((brand))) on to some intelligent text, you might say, protest lyrics text.
I feel the same yearning as co-opted passions and thoughtful consideration could be deployed for our authentic protest, and not for the (((alternative-k*ke))), when I read Melissa Meszaros’ article about the suicide of Linkin Park frontman, Chester Bennington.
The strikeouts of “alt-rights” and “the left” in one place are strictly my wish and of course not how Melissa wrote the article - as she did, in order to brand it for the (((Alt-Right))). In one place I have to comment where, typical of right wing misguidance, the negative significance and anti stance she registers for the homosexual issue is disproportionate. Everything else remains as she has written it.
Melissa Meszaros
Alt-Right, “What The Alt-Right Can Learn From The Death Of Chester Bennington, 24 July 2017:
Linkin Park touched the millennial generation’s frustrations with modern society like no other band could. For this reason, it’s worth spending a few moments looking into the life of frontman Chester Bennington and seeing what we can learn after his suicide.
Sexually molested from the age of seven, divorced parents, a steady cocktail of drugs from the age of eleven, with alcoholism and depression entering later on — these are the things that framed the childhood of Linkin Park’s frontman Chester Bennington.
Unable to overcome his traumas and subsequent addictions, he chose to use them as a painful source of inspiration in his lyrics. His suicide is unfortunate, especially for his children and wife, and whether we listened personally to the band or not as we were growing up, Linkin Park held a central position representing the millennial generation’s frustrations with life and all the associated mental effects relating to the increase of broken homes and fragmenting communities. The band spoke of problems most of us experienced as teenagers, back when we were confused and distrustful of the direction our supposedly fantastic and free society was heading. Now, as adults in the Alt-Right, with infinitely more resources and knowledge at our fingertips, we are dedicated to overcoming and fixing these issues within ourselves and our societies. But still, for many of us, Linkin Park was the herald awakening millions of teens to the realization that the world is messed-up and it was time to prepare for a long battle. For this reason, I believe it’s worth spending a few moments looking into Bennington’s life of inescapable addiction and seeing what we in the Alt-Right can learn from it.
For me, I remember Linkin Park being the most popular band in my freshman year of high school in Central New Jersey. It was the last year I’d spend in the United States before moving to Hungary with my parents. My friends would carry around the Hybrid Theory CD and hold it reverently during recess while talking about the lyrics. We’d sit with crossed-legs in a circle in the shady corner of a grassy lot while spawns of diversity hollered and beat each other on the nearby basketball courts.
I only got into the band later, for a few months when my father was in the hospital in Hungary, dying from terminal lung cancer. The music is not positive and it does not remind me of a good place. Rather, I envision a constant delirious struggle with myself, getting caught in a loop over thinking various problems and feeling uncertain of ever being able to overcome the odds and live in peace. These are the very thought processes Chester Bennington described himself dealing with, in an interview with 102.7 KIISFM radio in February of this year. After a while, I realized the music was keeping me from moving past my own issues, so I grew out of it.
When it comes to Bennington himself, there are three things worth highlighting. First, there is the molestation by an older male friend. In his own words, Bennington described:
“It escalated from a touchy, curious, ‘what does this thing do’ into full-on, crazy violations. I was getting beaten up and being forced to do things I didn’t want to do. It destroyed my self-confidence. I didn’t want people to think I was gay or that I was lying. It was a horrible experience.”
Tara can be an epoch figure for White sovereignty, will be in all likelihood; but she needs to be wary of furthering enemy interests, their tandem YKW/right-wing coalition, by coddling their plants (((e.g., Lauren Southern))) and inadvertently advancing their agenda through the Alt-Lite/ the Alt-Right - the (((co-option)))/reaction paradigm they seek to control.
Prof. Ewa Łętowska of Polish Academy of Sciences, explains in simple words, how PiS crushed the judiciary system in Poland.
OKO Press, “The end of independent judiciary in Poland. PiS government violates the Constitution and assumes control over all courts”, 15 July 2017:
The Law and Justice party (PiS), has been ruling in Poland for nearly two years, since the election in November, 2015 gave them a steady majority in the parliament. Yet it took them just one day to overturn the democratic order in the country once and for all. Since July 12th 2017 all courts in Poland are now under threat of being controlled by the ruling party
With two bills passed already by the lower house of the Polish parliament, and a third one awaiting the final vote, the rule of separation of powers has lost its validity in Poland.
From now on legislative, executive and judicial powers will be concentrated in the hands of one institution, which is Law and Justice government of Poland. More precisely in the hands of the Minister of Justice, Zbig Ziobro.
New pieces of legislation give him the right to appoint and dismiss practically all judges, including those at the Supreme Court. The new law goes as far, as to allowing him to hand-pick judges for particular court cases.
It is more than obvious, that these changes go in complete contradiction to The Constitution of Poland. Just like in the case of the late Constitutional Tribunal.
The civil society is not laying down its arms
New legislation caused an outrage in the entire country and was strongly objected by the opposition inside and outside of the parliament, non-governmental organizations, as well as the legal community.
The official statement of Helsinki Federation for Human Rights:
The draft law amending the Supreme Court Act, brought to the Parliament by the governing majority, is an attempt to introduce an unconstitutional change to the system of government of the Republic of Poland and contravene the principle of the separation of powers (Article 10 of the Constitution).
The termination of tenures of all the Court’s judges and granting the Minister of Justice a competence to single-handedly decide which judges will remain in office in this most important Polish court is tantamount to the revocation of the Supreme Court’s independence. Such a solution is applied only by the governments of authoritarian states.
An independent Supreme Court plays a key role in a democratic state ruled by law. Not only it exercises the supervision over common courts regarding rulings, but it also adjudicates upon the validity of the parliamentary and presidential elections.
The draft law on the Supreme Court deepens the Polish constitutional crisis, ongoing since November 2015. A day after the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary was amended, the governing majority strengthened the political influence on the administration of justice in Poland. This in consequence will lead to a situation when the basic human right to a fair trial by an impartial court becomes illusory.
The Official Statement of the Warsaw Bar Association of 13 July 2017 r.
Yesterday, at late-night hour a legislative proposal amending the Supreme Court Act (draft bill No. 1727) has been filed to the Sejm (the “Draft Bill”). On the same day the Draft Bill was referred for its first reading.
Article 87 sec. 1 of the Draft Bill states: „As of the day following the date of entry into force of this Act, all judges of the Supreme Court appointed in accordance with currently binding provisions of law, excluding judges selected by the Minister of Justice, shall be granted a retirement (stan spoczynku). As of the date of entry into force of this bill, the Minister of Justice, in his notification in the Official Journal of the Minister of Justice (obwieszczenie w dzienniku urzędowym Ministra Sprawiedliwości), shall designate judges of the Supreme Court who shall remain in active service, taking into account a necessity of introducing organizational changes resulting from the system change and maintaining continuity of works of the Supreme Court”.
According to Article 88 of the Draft Bill „If a Judge of the Supreme Court was granted a retirement under Article 87 sec. 1, tasks and competences of the First President of the Supreme Court shall be performed by the judge of the Supreme Court who is selected by the Minister of Justice”. According to Article 108 of the Draft Bill, its provisions shall enter into force within 14 days from the day of their official publication.
The above legislative proposal is a matter of an utmost concern. The draft provisions vest in the Minister of Justice – a representative of the executive power, an active politician and General Prosecutor who is superior to all prosecutors of the State – an unlimited power to appoint both, judges of the Supreme Court and the First President of the Supreme Court. The planned amendment to the law must be assessed as a clear violation of the principle of judicial independence, the principle of separation of powers and the democratic rule of law.
Warsaw Bar Association calls the Sejm for an immediate end to any further works on the Draft Bill, and authors of the Draft Bill for its withdrawal from any further legislative works.
The Draft Bill aims at depriving all citizens of right to independent and impartial judiciary guaranteed under Article 45 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
An impartial and independent judiciary is always a guarantee of an effective protection of each individual’s all rights and freedoms.
The End, Linkin Park’s Chester Bennington
However much of a taboo one is breaking by saying it, there is no cultural identity in a population without a stable ethnic composition
Melissa Meszaros
Prof. Ewa Łętowska of Polish Academy of Sciences, explains in simple words, how PiS crushed the judiciary system in Poland.