[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 Tuesday, 15 March 2016 10:56.
While Louis Farrakhan praises Trump for what he believes to be his independence of Jewish interests, “Black Lives Matter” demonstrated that black lives don’t necessarily matter if they wholeheartedly support Trump.
...an African-American supporter of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has died after allegedly sustaining gunshot wounds in the aftermath of Friday night’s chaos in Chicago.
Robert King Bullock, aged 37, was a resident of Chicago’s Evanston suburb. According to Bullock’s friend, who also attended the Trump rally, Robert was an avid chef, and he recently obtained his Masters of Business Administration and planned to open a local restaurant.
This source spoke with CTN on the condition of anonymity, and asked to be referred to as “Terry.” He called for Bullock’s death to serve as a reminder to anti-Trump groups and the mainstream media.
“Rob was a black man, but he supported Trump because he got tired of Democrats saying his race was the thing holding him back,” Bullock’s friend told CTN.
“[Rob] lost his job because of Obamacare. He lost his brother to black-on-black gang violence. Now he lost his life because he believed in a white man. His race didn’t have a damn thing to do with what held him back.”
Bullock and Terry were separated in the chaos that followed the protesters’ interruption of the planned Trump rally, which led to widespread violent scuffles and the event’s cancellation. It is believed that he attempted to make his way to a nearby bar to charge his dead cell-phone and reconnect with Terry.
Multiple sources have confirmed that protesters and Trump supporters continued to clash as they moved from the UIC Pavillion to their vehicles and nearby locations. It is believed that Bullock, at some point after leaving the event center, was confronted by protesters, beaten, then allegedly shot two times in the abdomen and left shoulder by a small to medium-size handgun.
The following picture allegedly was taken as police walked the crime scene north of the UIC Pavillion, where the Trump rally was held.
Terry says that the circumstances surrounding the events are still unclear, and he only learned of Bullock’s death when his business card was found in the victim’s pocket. Terry says that Bullock asked for his contact information when the chaos erupted and he realized that his phone battery was dead.
Bullock’s body was discovered in the early hours of the morning by two homeless gentlemen. He was transported to a nearby hospital, where he was pronounced dead,
Terry says that two signs were also found next to Bullock’s body. One read, “Stop The Racist Trump.” The other was marked with, “Donald Trump = KKK.”
Farrakhan’s home base is in Chicago. He is the most respected black leader among blacks. If he likes Trump most among the leading candidates, it raises questions as to the “organized and organic” disruption of Trump’s speech - “Black Lives Matter” style - in Chicago…
I like Trump. He’ll take America to hell in a rocket-ship because he really got the courage to do it; and the reason I like it is because he ain’t bought and paid for (but that don’t mean that you should vote for him).
Louis Farrakhan, Chicago.
Mr. Trump is peeling away the skin of the onion of White civility….he is beginning to show something in the character of the Whites that follow him; that they don’t care what he says. He could say one thing this minute another thing the next minute; and you can see that the man has a little problem. He is exacerbating the race situation in America. And I will guarantee you, that if he becomes President, he’ll take America exactly where America is heading. He’ll take you there on a rocket ship. How can a man say that he’s not a thug, he’s a diplomat, he’s a President; we’ll go into Iraq and we’ll just take the oil. See, that’s the thug coming out. That’s that part of the nature of the beast that’s manifesting. Well, if he becomes your President, you’ll be just like him. ...when you get leadership that is not rooted in justice then they begin to make the people just like themselves. Be careful America, you are headed into the abyss of hell.
CHICAGO — With thousands of people already packed into stands and music blaring to warm up the crowd, Donald J. Trump’s campaign abruptly canceled his rally here on Friday night over security concerns as protesters clashed with his supporters inside an arena where he was to speak.
Minutes after Mr. Trump was to have taken to a podium on the campus of a large, diverse public university just west of downtown, an announcer suddenly pronounced the event over before it had begun.
“Organized and organic” protestor with orange wristband
Note “Orange Revolution” wrist bands.
George Soros was an original backer of “Black Lives Matter”, “The Orange Revolution”, “Femen” and other neo-liberal “organic uprisings.”
CHICAGO — The push to disrupt Donald Trump’s campaign rally began a week ago, when news first broke that the Republican presidential candidate would appear at the University of Illinois campus here on this city’s West Side.
Student leaders of campus organizations such as the Black Student Union and Muslim Student Association began organizing their own rally and march to the rally venue; a Facebook page publicizing the efforts attracted 11,000 people.
The election process is currently underway in Ireland and the so called “nationalist” political party Sinn Féin is out campaigning and drumming up votes.
The insane anti-White duplicity of this party can best be demonstrated by looking at their support for the Palestinians. On the one hand they show 100% support for this group and their right to a homeland.
Sinn Féin rally
But on the other hand they have no problem selling out the indigenous White Irish peoples homeland as long as it gets them some votes (the secondary consideration) and keeps them inline with the anti-White narrative (the primary consideration). Never mix the two up. Too many times we hear people saying “it’s all about the votes”. Nope, it’s a small part about the votes and a LARGE part about turning White countries non-White in the name of “diversity”.
As they say, a picture speaks 1000 words and here is Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams out posing for votes.
Let’s not forget that prominent members of this group were actively involved in the violent struggle against the British. But yet today they are the ones out advocating a “diverse” Ireland made up of “new Irish”.
Edmund
Anti-White madness like this only starts to make sense once you factor in the White geNOcide
Afghan nationals Nazirulhag (left) and Rahmatullah wait at a boom station three kilometers east of Alakurtti, Russia on January 23, 2016 for permission from the Russian Border Guard to continue on with their trip to Finland’s Salla border crossing. | Image: Jussi Nukari / Lehtikuva
Finnish news agency STT reports a Russian border guard’s confession that the transport of asylum seekers to Finland’s two northeast border crossings is being orchestrated by the Russian Federation’s Federal Security Service, the FSB. Families with children are given priority, the source said. Finnish authorities have suspected for some time that the transfer of asylum seekers from Russia to Finland has been part of a carefully organised operation.
The Tampere-based newspaper Aamulehti reported on Saturday that a Russian border guard told the Finnish news agency STT that the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) has arranged asylum seeker access to the Finnish border. The FSB organises the traffic in concert with the Kandalaksha district administration of Russia’s Murmansk region and the Russian Border Guard.
The board guard source says the FSB decides which car moves at what time and how it can proceed to the border. The state-sponsored organisation gives priority to families with small children, the source reveals.
An STT photographer who visited the Russian side of the Salla border crossing told the Finnish tabloid Ilta-Sanomat that he had seen asylum seekers waiting in their cars in the Russian city of Alakurtti, located about 70 kilometres from the border. The photographer said there were dozens of cars with asylum seekers waiting there, cut off by a boom that allowed other cars to pass.
The Finnish commercial television station MTV says the photographer later picked up a Border Guard employee whose car had stalled in the cold. During their journey together, the Russian guard told the Finn about the Russian asylum seeker operation.
Finns suspected organised activity
Several Finnish authorities have gone public recently with their suspicion that the transfer of asylum seekers from Russia to Finland is an organised effort. On Yle’s morning programme Saturday, MEPs Jussi Halla-aho and Petri Sarvamaa said they believe Russia is using the migrant crisis to gain foreign policy leverage.
Foreign Minister Timo Soini met with officials at the Lapland border stations early Saturday morning and said the visit confirmed his suspicion that the asylum seeker traffic there is arranged by Russian enablers.
“The impression that someone is organising and regulating things on the Russian side is probably true. Border guard employees don’t play politics, they jointly take care of cross-border traffic. It is quite obvious that activity like this is a managed effort,” he said.
Reality is an interesting thing, isn’t it?
But if a person has been reading most European ethno-nationalist news sites a person would surely have been led to believe that Russia is a ‘friend’ of Europe, and that the Russian Federation is the last hope for Europe, and that they alone will defend Europe. Or something like that.
Do not be deceived, Russia wants to see the European Union collapse and is more than happy to assist in that process, while simultaneously pretending that they are not involved in it.
President Sauli Niinistö and Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev | Image: Antti Aimo-Koivisto / Lehtikuva ja Yekaterina Shtukina / AFP
Ahead of a Friday evening meeting with Finnish President Niinistö, the Russian PM is quoted as saying that Moscow cannot stop asylum seekers from crossing into Finland.
Finnish President Sauli Niinistö meets with Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev on Friday evening on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. The two are likely to discuss the migrant situation along the countries’ mutual border, where the number of arriving asylum seekers has been surging in recent weeks.
Medvedev was earlier in the day quoted as saying that Russia does not intend to prevent asylum seekers’ movement toward the Finnish border.
The quote was posted on the Russian government website as part of its version of the premier’s interview with the German newspaper Handelsblatt – although the business daily’s published interview does not include any mention of Finland. In the official transcript, Medvedev says that Russia cannot stop asylum seekers from crossing into Finland.
“No legal grounds” to stop migrants
He is also quoted as saying that Niinistö and Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilä are very concerned about the situation, but that Russia does not have any legal grounds to stop those heading west into Finland. Medvedev met with Sipilä in St Petersburg in late January.
Medvedev notes that Russia is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. He insisted that Russia has no bad intentions and does not plan to send excessive numbers of asylum seekers into Finland.
Finland’s 1340-kilometre border with Russia is the EU’s longest.
See, the Russian-Jew Prime Minister Dmitry (((Medvedev))) says that there are ‘no bad intentions’! He can totally be trusted, right? Every European ethno-nationalist site can now return to posting stupid memes about how ‘cool’ Russia’s government is, while the Russian FSB are continuing to ferry migrants across Russia’s largest border with the EU.
Other sites may have ideological, religious, or even monetary reasons to slavishly support Russia, but thankfully we at Majorityrights have no such entanglements.
Because of our ideological, religious, and monetary independence, Majorityrights can and will continue to call a spade a spade.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 13 February 2016 15:29.
Jews may not flock to Russia upon Putin’s offer, as New Observer quotes Mikhail Skoblionok saying, but they’re already comfortably affixed there. The reason they may not flock there from other places is because the parasitic ways they established there have already desiccated the economy of that host -
European Jews will not take up Vladimir Putin’s recent offer to take “refuge” in Russia, even though the Russian Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are Jews, Mikhail Skoblionok, a leading member of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress has said.
Writing in the Tatar news website Realnoe Vremya, Skoblionok, (here in Russian, and here in English) who also is president of the Jewish National and Cultural Autonomy of Tatarstan, said that “a Jew of sound judgment won’t go to Russia.”
Putin made the offer last month in a meeting with members of the European Jewish Congress (EJC) that took place in the Kremlin. Moshe Vyacheslav Kantor, EJC president, complained to Putin about the rising anti-Semitism across Europe and the growing number of attacks against Jews.
Putin replied: “Let [the Jews] come to us then,” adding that “during the Soviet period they were leaving the country, and now they should return.”
Skoblionok, who represents the 10,000 Jews in the Republic of Tatarstan, a federal state of the Russian Federation in the Volga Federal District, expressed his doubt that Jews would take up Putin’s suggestion.
“To start with, I will describe the situation in Israel,” Skoblionok said.
“There is a tendency there: French Jews have been buying up apartments in Israel for the last five years. There are houses but the light is off. I am asking, ‘Why is the light off? Are these apartments empty?’
“People say that French Jews bought up these apartments and keep them in store. They are afraid that France will become a merely Muslim state so have prepared reserve flats,” he wrote, indicating that Jews were preparing to leave France in large numbers in the case of an emergency.
“My friends, who go to France, note that the Arab people are crowded into the country. Arabs will soon account for 80 percent of the population, like our Far East is populated by Chinese people,” he continued, in this case referring to the colonization of the far eastern regions of Russia.
“The population of ethnic French people is reducing in number; they are not reproducing, unlike the Arabs. The Muslims have large families there—sometimes a family has fifteen children,” Skoblionok pointed out.
“France lacks space, and Jews go to other countries where there is work and an opportunity to make money. The number of attacks based on national and religious beliefs is increasing in Europe. There is hysteria among the Arabs too. Europe fears a pogrom against Jews, and this feeling is strongly noticed in France,” he said.
Skoblionok then went on to discuss Putin’s proposal: “Vladimir Putin always knows what to do and say. But a Jew of sound judgement won’t go to Russia,” he said.
“I will explain why. Our country is at the height of an economic crisis. There is a huge gap between the rich and the poor which does not exist in many other countries. The rich buy villas, hotels, and yachts abroad, while the poor simply have nothing to eat. A revolution may yet come about here,” he said—ignoring the fact that he is one of the “rich” himself, having become the oligarch head of the natural gas exploration and petroleum production company TAkPO CJSC in 1987—and then buying it when privatization came after the fall of Communism.
“The Jews all over the world know and have assessed this situation. This is why I don’t think that there will be a mad rush of Jews from the whole world to Russia.”
However, he then said that that there was no danger to Jews in Russia.
Under the heading “Country headed by Jews,” Skoblionok said that “in Russia, the attitude of both ordinary citizens and the government to the Jews is good.
“In addition, there are large numbers of Jews in the Russian government. [Prime Minister Dmitry] Medvedev has Jewish roots. [Deputy Prime Minister Arkady] Dvorkovich is Jewish. What attitude will they have to themselves?” he rhetorically asked.
Even so, he went on, in his own region of Tatarstan, “the situation is different. The regional government has no Jews [in it].”
He told of how a local synagogue had failed to be given land next to its building, even though they had won the rights to it in court.
This piece of land, he lamented, “will be up for auction. And we were told ‘go and buy it’ [instead of getting it for nothing].”
“What Jew will come here?” he concluded.
But where there is a will there is an oy vey! And where there is a vey! they can make a deal, such a deal.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 21 January 2016 01:33.
It’s time for another instalment of ‘things Putin actually said’. Imagine that Europe became a really hazardous place to live one day, so hazardous that the Jews started looking for places to run to in order to escape from the backlash stemming from their own handiwork.
Russian president Vladimir Putin has met with European Jewish leaders to discuss their concerns over rising anti-Semitism on the continent.
During the meeting, Putin pointed out that many Jews emigrated from Moscow when it was part of the former Soviet Union. He said now they can come back.
The president of the European Jewish Congress, Moshe Kantor said the number of Jews fleeing Europe is also on the rise.
“The situation with the Jews in Europe is the worst it has been since the end of the Second World War,” said Kantor. “The Jews are again in fear and a Jewish exodus from Europe is quite real. There are more Jews fleeing France, which is considered very secure, than from civil-war-torn Ukraine.”
“Let them come here,” said Putin. “They emigrated from here under Soviet Union, but now they can come back.”
Of course. He’ll probably invite them to settle in the ‘Far East’, land which the Russians have no warrant to put themselves in, much less their Jewish friends.
The governor of Russia’s Far East Jewish Autonomous Region says the area is “ready” to house Jews from Europe who are facing anti-Semitism.
Aleksandr Levintal said his region “will welcome Jews from European countries, where they may face attacks by anti-Semitic elements.”
Levintal also called his region “the first officially established Jewish statehood.”
Levintal’s remarks come a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin called on Jews to return to Russia.
In Moscow on January 19, Putin told the head of the European Jewish Congress, Moshe Kantor, that he had seen reports saying European Jews were scared to wear a yarmulke, the traditional Jewish skull cap, in public.
Putin told Kantor, “They can come to us. They left the Soviet Union. Let them return.”
The Jewish Autonomous Region was established by the Soviet government in 1934 in a part of southeastern Siberia that borders China.
In 1948, the Jewish population there peaked at 30,000—a quarter of the region’s total population.
By 2010, out of 180,000 residents in the region, only about 1,600 were of Jewish ancestry.
The Russians want to use their federal structure as a tool to vector more Jews into Siberia. How long is humanity going to have to endure the existence of a structure like the Russian federal state? Who will rid the world of that gigantic bloated cancer?
The coordinated attacks were not limited to Cologne.
Immigrant men being over-represented in governmental gender policy-making and holding racist views of Swedish women is well-known to DN and other media. But to report on the abuses causes a collision with the newspaper’s political values. After the mass atrocities against German women in Cologne a broad awakening is occurring to the wave of scandals across Europe and in several cases cover-ups have come to the surface.
Abuse of Swedish girls from men of immigrant background - often so-called “refugees” - should have been reported on, inter alia, as having occurred at ‘The We Are Stockholm Festival’ in Stockholm last summer. It was something that DN was tipped-off about, but somehow reporting never happened. Blame the missed responsibility and the “aggravating circumstances” for enabling the abuse.
DN receives daily tips on crimes and abuses in which Swedish women are victims and perpetrators immigrant. Often there are racist motives behind the atrocities. To report on abuses should not involve any consideration for an objective newspaper in the public service. To mention the perpetrators’ ethnicity in similar cases is also relevant because it almost exclusively concerns race and racism in this type of crime.
The result will often instead be a total loss of reporting because one cannot mention the crime and its possible nature without it somehow becoming too obvious and too hard to avoid referring to the offenders’ ethnicity. In several cases, reporters have chosen to call the perpetrators “Swedes”, even in cases where they lacked Swedish citizenship. But as this kind of obscuring or intentional misrepresentation becomes increasingly obvious they often prefer not to report on the events at all.
To dampen the growing confident indignation of Dagens Nyheter, other media outlets now go about trying to minimize the damage by blaming the police for not reporting properly on last summer’s attacks on the We Are Stockholm Festival.
A police chief in Stockholm was forced to recognize how it happened:
- This is a sore point, we sometimes dare not say what it is because we think it plays into the hands of The Swedish Democrats. We must take this under consideration as police said the police chief, Peter Agren.
The politicized news and obscuring of the impact of immigration policy is often described as one of the main causes of the crisis of confidence in old newspaper readership.
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.
