Majorityrights News > Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

We must seize this golden opportunity to Leave the European Union and take back control of our borders.

We cannot afford to risk staying in a political organization that is ready to admit Turkey and planning deeper integration.

We have no border controls inside EU. If you want the UK to be able to control migration then vote to Leave EU.

Why we must vote LEAVE in the EU referendum…

READ MORE...

TNO, “Furious Nonwhites Riot at Calais,” 22 June 2016:

Thousands of nonwhite invaders have once again gone on the rampage outside the French port of Calais, desperately trying to force their way into Britain prior to the European Union referendum on Thursday.

Chanting slogans such as “F**k UK”—even though they are seeking entry to that country—the nonwhites shut roads, hurled rocks, and placed obstacles in the roads leading to the ferries and the Channel Tunnel.

French police were called out for the third day in a row after nonwhite hordes—all living illegally in the French town’s outskirts after being allowed to invade Europe—targeted cars, buses, and trucks in an attempt to hijack their way into Britain.

     

     

       
        Simpson & Brown’s daughter at age 30 - YKW recombination

       
        Nicole Brown, at age 35, an equally gruesome outcome

        O.J. Simpson, typical black behavior and typical Jewish facilitation -
       
          NPR, “The Perfect Perversity of the O.J. Simpson Case”, 14 June 2016:

          NPR series: there is no doubt that OJ Simpson committed the murders.

There were signs from the very first date he had with the 18 year old Nicole Brown that OJ Simpson was violent.

        Brown’s friend had noticed signs that Simpson had forced himself upon her in the first date..he had ripped open her pants…

...

The series reveals many other facts not previously well known about the case:

Another 9-11 call from Nicole has a policeman arrive. Brown tells the policeman emphatically that Simpson is going to kill her. Brown has a bruise on her face and Simpson tells the policeman that he doesn’t care, he doesn’t want her in his bed, he has two other women.

The policeman tells Simpson that he is under arrest for domestic violence. Simpson goes into his house, ostensibly to get dressed, but races away in his car via a rear exit. The police pursue, but don’t catch him and don’t pursue him afterward.

This is one of the surprising elements of the series: The L.A. Police Department was not eager to prosecute Simpson. They treated him with kid gloves.

The detective who interviewed Simpson after the murder did not ask him to provide a time line of his day - which would have caught him in several lies - basically, because the detective was following The L.A. P.D.‘s tendency to treat Simpson and his celebrity with deference.

       
In fact, in being racial, Fuhrman was an outlier to this culture. He actually had sued the L.A. Police Department for early retirement, claiming psychological disability because he could not stand having to deal with blacks.

The L.A. P.D. won the case, was not compelled to accept Fuhrman’s claim, and told him to get back to work.

Unfortunately for the case against Simpson, Fuhrman was the one who collected Simpson’s glove left at the scene of the murder.

Simpson was advised to stop taking his arthritis medicine so that his hands would swell up. When the glove didn’t fit Simpson’s hand in a demonstration before the jury, it added to the suggestion that Fuhrman’s racism might motivate him to set-up Simpson - a Negro man in an interracial relationship which Fuhrman was known to not like - prosecuting him unjustly by planting the glove as fake evidence.

         
Allowing Simpson to try-on the glove was black prosecuting attorney Christopher Darden’s blunder. Darden was said to have had an affair with Marcia Clarke during the trial.

“If it doesn’t fit you must acquit” was Simpson’s black defense attorney, Johnny Cochran’s famous line, but what was most important in the acquittal was the way he successfully pandered to a majority black jury, Jewish legal system and zeitgeist, by diverting them from the obvious evidence against O.J. Simpson, into “juicestice” instead, presenting the case as an indictment of Furhman and the L.A. Police Department’s early stage ‘Hitleresque’ will to genocide, racism and cover-up of its racism - a particularly effective argument in L.A. following the Rodney King incident.

Key excerpts from Corchran’s closing argument:

Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don’t stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.‘s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn’t it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don’t take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don’t take any pride in it. But for some of you, you are finding out the other side of life. You are finding out—that is why this case is so instructive. You are finding out about the other side of life, but things aren’t always as they seem. It is not just rhetoric, it is the actions of people, it is the lack of courage and it is a lack of integrity at high places. That is what we are talking about here.

                               
Fuhrman sued LAPD years before, seeking early retirement because he couldn’t stand having to deal with blacks and interracial couples.

[Ibid. Johnny Corchran’s closing argument] I don’t know how this subject was raised but officer Fuhrman says that when he sees a Nigger, as he called it, driving with a white woman, he would pull them over. I asked what if he didn’t have a reason and he said that he would find one. I looked at the two marines to see if they knew he was joking, but it became obvious to me that he was very serious.” Now, let me just stop at this point. Let’s back it up a minute, Mr. Harris. Pull it back down, please. If he sees an African American with a white woman he would stop them. If he didn’t have a reason, he would find one or make up one. This man will lie to set you up. That is what he is saying there. He would do anything to set you up because of the hatred he has in his heart. A racist is somebody who has power over you, who can do something to you. People could have views but keep them to themselves, but when they have power over you, that is when racism becomes insidious. That is what we are talking about here. He has power. A police officer in the street, a patrol officer, is the single most powerful figure in the criminal justice system. He can take your life. Unlike the supreme court, you don’t have to go through all these appeals. He can do it right there and justify it. And that is why, that is why this has to be routed out in the LAPD and every place. Make up a reason because he made a judgment. That is what happened in this case. They made a judgment. Everything else after that is going to point toward O.J. Simpson. They didn’t want to look at anybody else. Mr. Darden asked who did this crime? That is their job as the police. We have been hampered. They turned down our offers for help. But that is the prosecution’s job. The judge says we don’t have that job. The law says that. We would love to help do that. Who do you think wants to find these murderers more than Mr. Simpson? But that is not our job; it is their job. And when they don’t talk to anybody else, when they rush to judgment in their obsession to win, that is why this became a problem. This man had the power to carry out his racist views and that is what is so troubling. Let’s move on. Making up a reason. That is troubling. That is frightening. That is chilling. But if that wasn’t enough, if that wasn’t enough, the thing that really gets you is she goes on to say: “Officer Fuhrman went on to say that he would like nothing more than to see all niggers gathered together and killed. He said something about burning them or bombing them. I was too shaken to remember the exact words he used. However, I do remember that what he said was probably the most horrible thing I had ever heard someone say. What frightened me even more was that he was a police officer sworn to uphold the law.” And now we have it. There was another man, not too long ago in the world, who had those same views who wanted to burn people, who had racist views and ultimately had power over people in this country.

People didn’t care. People said he was just crazy, he is just a half-baked painter. They didn’t do anything about it. This man, this scourge, became one of the worse people in the history of this world, Adolph Hitler, because people didn’t care or didn’t try to stop him. He had the power over his racism and his anti-religion. Nobody wanted to stop him, and it ended up in world war ii, the conduct of this man. And so Fuhrman, Fuhrman wants to take all black people now and burn them or bomb them. That is genocidal racism. Is that ethnic purity? What is that? What is that? We are paying this man’s salary to espouse these views? Do you think he only told Kathleen Bell whom he just had met? Do you think he talked to his partners about it? Do you think commanders knew about it? Do you think everybody knew about it and turned their heads? Nobody did anything about it.

                           
Reaction to the “innocent verdict”: O.J. Simpson, typical black behavior (dindu) and typical Jewish enabling. The glove trick was the idea of Shapiro (in background). F. Lee Baily, O.J. Simpson and Johnny Corchran, react in foreground.

In what is supposed to be prosecuting attorney Marcia Clark’s “closing argument” against the eminently guilty O.J. Simpson (who is merely one expression of pervasive black hyper-assertion, social irresponsibility and violence that needs to be defended against), Clark instead makes it a key point to condemn and condemn ultimately, Mark Fuhrman, a dedicated, competent and fair, career police detective:

Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worst L.A. P.D. has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by the L.A. P.D.? Yes. Should L.A. P.D. have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there was no such person on the planet? Yes.

This “closing argument” by Marcia Clark is unbelievably perverted - she devoted 41 seconds (1/4th) of her 2:44 second long closing argument to condemning, and condemning ultimately, Mark Furhman, for the innate and necessary capacity that all species have to discriminate on behalf of their own survival - she even explicitly denounces Furhrman’s very existence.

Marcia Clark’s lawyering efforts were thoroughly co-opted by Jewish, anti-White purposes of destroying Whites.

Anti-racism is a Jewish construct that capitalizes on Cartesianism’s rational blindness to prejudices, to the fact that its way of viewing the world is not innocent, that it is hurting and it is killing people - it targets Whites, especially.

       
29 April 1992, during black riots: Blacks pulled Reginald Denny from his truck passing through the riot areas, and then celebrate after having thrown a brick full force, point blank into his head. This was far worse than the incident which sparked the riots, a baton beating that police administered to physically resistant Rodney King, who had been apprehended after a dangerous, high-speed car chase.

       
        Border fence between Israel and Syria (Photo: AFP)

TNO, “Israel to Build “Super Wall”, 17 June 2016:

Israel is to build a “super concrete wall” around the Gaza Strip which will extend dozens of feet over and underground, the Jewish state has announced.

At the same time, all major US Jewish organizations—which fanatically support Israel—have opposed Donald Trump’s plans to build a wall on the US-Mexican border.

       

According to a report in Israel’s Ynet News, Israel’s defense establishment plans to build a concrete wall “tens of meters underground as well as aboveground along the Gaza Strip border.”

It has previously been estimated that such a project would cost tens of billions of shekels. However, under the new plan the construction costs are estimated to reach NIS 2.2 billion, Ynet News said.

Doubtless this will come from the US$11 million per day that the American government gives in “aid” to the Jewish state.

The wall will stretch along the 60 miles of the southern border around the Gaza Strip, and will in fact be the third defense system of its kind that Israel has built along the border.

READ MORE...

DM, “Rapist who ‘took away childhood and innocence’ of girl, aged 11, is jailed for 15 years” 3 April 2016:

Mohammed Amin, 27, seduced his victim by throwing notes through her bedroom window, a court heard.
 
  Mohammed Amin cried when the judge sentenced him

A rapist who lied about his age and took away the “childhood and innocence” of his 11-year-old victim has been jailed for fifteen years.

Mohammed Amin, 27, seduced her by throwing notes through her bedroom window, the court heard.

He was sentenced at Cardiff Crown Court on Friday after pleading guilty to raping the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

The court heard how Amin was jailed for six months last year for sexual activity with the same girl but this was on the basis he had kissed her and had inappropriately contacted her on Facebook , Wales Online reported .

The truth was he had coerced his victim, who was aged 11 and 12 at the time of abuse, into a sexual relationship which lasted around 18 months, the court heard.

The abuse came to light after the girl confided in a member of staff at her school.

Prosecutor Ieuan Bennett said the girl was interviewed by police and said she and Amin had become “boyfriend and girlfriend”.

He added: “It appears the defendant realised the relationship was inappropriate because he told her not to tell anybody else about the it as he might go to prison.

“She explained they would sometimes go in his car to Cardiff Bay for a day out and she would go to his flat almost every day.

“It seems the kissing started almost on the first day of them becoming friends.

“He wrote her notes and threw them up through her bedroom window. One said ‘Will you go out with me?’.”

Amin initially lied about his age, saying he was 22-years-old, but later admitted to being 26-years-old.

The girl told him she was 14 but she later admitted to being 11-years-old early on in the relationship.

She said Amin’s response was: “I don’t care”.

When asked by police why she didn’t tell them sooner about the more serious accusations, the girl said she didn’t want Amin to go to jail but over time she had come to realise the effect the relationship had had on her.

  Chinese laundry commercial washing away the fraud of anti-racism

A Chinese ban on interracial marriage is largely a step in the right direction, but it is troubling that the rule would not extend to men for a few reasons: they have a disproportionate male population which, like black women, tend to be shunned in interracial partner selection. Similar as with Muslims, this frustrated excess male population can create an explosive effect in interaction with other populations.

From a European man’s perspective, the Chinese situation is complicated, since it can relate to the Chinese banning of interracial marriage - to blacks in particular, recognizing that in terms of feminine qualities and those sublimated qualities necessary to create a reasonable and sufficiently complex civilization, that blacks are not offering anything near sufficient exchange.

East Asian Tribune, 8 June 2016:

China Bans Interracial Marriages For Females; No Plans To Restrict Men

The Supreme People’s Court of China today passed legislation that will ban Chinese women from marrying non-Chinese men, with the law coming into effect at the beginning of 2018. The policy had been fiercely debated for a number of months before it finally won approval from the required number of legislators earlier today. Civil rights groups in China have condemned the restriction, pointing out that it discriminates against women by still permitting males to enter into interracial marriages.

“We strongly urge the People’s Court to reconsider this new law, and repeal the legislation before it comes into force.” A small group of protesters staged a rally outside the courthouse in central Beijing today, but were soon dispersed by authorities. Following decades of the one-child policy, China is now faced with a shocking gender imbalance – for every girl below the age of 18 in China, there are now three boys. “The law was introduced in order to promote social harmony,” commented one of the People’s Courts legislators. “We need to ensure there are enough Chinese women available for marriage; otherwise there is a high probability of increased levels of rape and other violence.” One of the more controversial aspects of the new law is the fact that Chinese men are not banned from marrying women of other races. “Because we have such a shortage of women in China, we need to make sure Chinese men have as many opportunities as possible to find a bride.”

The news comes as a positive to matchmaking businesses that introduce prospective brides from neighboring countries, such as Vietnam and Thailand, to Chinese men. “I had feared that they might also ban men from interracial marriage,” commented the owner of a successful matchmaking business in China’s Fujian Province. “Thankfully common sense has prevailed, although by banning Chinese women from marrying foreigners, my business will have more competition.” Meanwhile, industry groups representing ESL teachers in China have also criticized the new policy. “The majority of teachers are male, and most end up wedding local women,” said a spokesperson for a chain of English-teaching cram schools in Shanghai. “If our teachers are banned from marrying Chinese girls, they may not stay in the country as long, and we risk losing talented staff.”

European men might see a bit more legitimacy obtaining to intermarriage with more civilized peoples - viz., Asians - casting it more in terms of the accountability necessary to sustain important qualities and quantities of native populations. However, while broaching European group delimitation with blacks, Jews and probably Arabs would entail prohibition in any number, broaching an accountable number and quality with any group would entail exclusion from citizenship. Nevertheless, Europeans are not primarily accountable to bear excesses and imbalances in Asian populations - the Asians are.