Majorityrights News > Category: Political analysis

Guardian, ‘Jeremy Corbyn demands two-day Commons debate on Syria airstrikes’, 30 Nov 2015 (emphasis added):

Today’s shadow cabinet agreed to back Jeremy Corbyn’s recommendation of a free vote on the government’s proposal to authorise UK bombing in Syria.

The shadow cabinet decided to support the call for David Cameron to step back from the rush to war and hold a full two day [public] debate in the House of Commons on such a crucial national decision.

Shadow Cabinet members agreed to call David Cameron to account on the unanswered questions raised by his case for bombing: including how it would accelerate a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war; what ground troops would take territory evacuated by ISIS; military co-ordination and strategy; the refugee crisis and the imperative to cut-off of supplies to ISIS.

It’s almost as though the Labour party is staffed by actual retards.

An interesting observation coming from the people at White Genocide Project:

Steve Goode / White Genocide Project, ‘Belgians are more dangerous than ISIS, thinks Belgian government’, 29 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

Belgium.

While British and German intelligence agencies are worrying about ISIS and Al Qaeda coming over with the illegal immigrants, the Belgian government is frightened of the Belgians taking a stand against the tsunamigration.

The areas surrounding all illegal immigrant camps in Belgium have now been elevated from level 1 “no threat” to level 2 “average”.

Police will now be required to patrol these areas every few hours, despite Belgian intelligence agencies saying they have not detected any plans to attack illegal immigrant camps.

The Socialist mayor of Vilvoorde, thinks the threat level should be elevated even higher, because in his area apparently there are “houses with swastikas and far-right slogans.”

If you know their game-plan, it’s no surprise that the Belgian government considers their own people more of a threat than Islamists masquerading as illegal immigrants.

Like most European governments, the Belgian government wants their country to be a “diverse melting pot” where no group is the majority. And by carrying out this agenda – by deliberately trying to make White people a minority – they are committing an act of White Genocide.

This is key to understanding the nature of this crisis, and it is an issue that I have discussed here at Majorityrights before. There is a severe problem, one in which the governments of some countries are doing the precise opposite of what their own security services are telling them to do. There is a deepening division between the defence and security communities on one hand, and the governments in Europe on the other hand.

It’s apparently reached the point where in order to set the stage for accomplishing anything productive, it may have been that certain people in the intelligence services have had almost no choice but to keep leaking documents to the media—it is difficult to imagine any other reason for why there are about two stories per week leaking out—so that the media can keep applying pressure to the European governments by reporting on them, since that is fuelling the process of turning voter sentiments against the enormous dereliction of those governments.

Many of the present governments are really not fit to be in office because they are failing at the most basic of basic tasks. The task of defending the borders from illegal crossings, and the task of protecting people as they go about their daily business in the post-9/11, post-Madrid, post-7/7, post-Rotherham world. In actuality, these are ongoing security concerns. Security comes first, because without security you have nothing else. Any politicians who don’t understand this fact simply should not have been elected to office in the first place.

There is a convention in European politics where security, intelligence, and military figures refrain from directly and openly challenging the government. This is because it is usually seen as inappropriate by the European public. However, politicians who no longer inhabit reality should not be allowed to jeopardise the future of Europe, and it’s necessary to get the European peoples to show—perhaps through more organised street demonstrations like the ones going on in Germany—that the people largely believe the same.

The time is long overdue for the European peoples to come out of the liberal-humanitarian wardrobe of politeness and start supporting policy preferences for the real world, rather than policy preferences for Narnia. Some reality-based governments need to take hold in Europe, rather than governments adhering to the policy preferences of Barbara Lerner Spectre.

Once the trend that is reflected in those graphs is exhibited openly and clearly through demonstrations by people on the street, it may become the case that rather than seeing a trickle of anonymously- and semi-anonymously-sourced news stories in the media, the European people might get to see senior figures challenging governments openly and directly. At that stage, the push-back against the migration onslaught might begin to gather the new energy that it absolutely needs.

As the latest in a long line of churches doing things that ethno-nationalists do not like, the Polish Episocopate has now decided to make sure that you really know that they are against anti-semitism:

Radio Poland, ‘Polish Episcopate condemns anti-semitism as ‘a sin’‘, 20 Oct 2015: (emphasis added)

The Polish Episcopate has published an extensive condemnation of anti-semitism on the 50th anniversary of a landmark Vatican declaration on relations with non-Christian religions.

In a special pastoral letter entitled ‘The shared spiritual heritage of Christians and Jews’, the Episcopate stressed that “anti-semitism and anti-Judaism are sins against the love of thy neighbour.”

The letter notes that the Church organises an annual ‘Day of Judaism’, affirming however that “Christian-Jewish dialogue must never be treated as ‘the religious hobby’ of a small group of enthusiasts, but it should increasingly become part of the mainstream of pastoral work.”

The Polish clerics also acknowledged that the Holocaust, which was planned by “Nazi Germany and largely carried out on the territory of occupied Poland,” nevertheless “sometimes met with indifference among certain Christians.”

According to the Episcopate, “if Christians and Jews had practised religious brotherhood in the past, more Jews would have found help and support from Christians.”

In that respect, the Espiscopate particularly praises the ‘Righteous among Nations’ who “risked their lives and those of their loved ones, heroically rescuing Jews” during the war. Under the Nazi occupation, giving shelter to Jews by Poles was punishable by death.

“In many places in our country there are no Jews, only traces of their religion and culture, often in neglected cemeteries,” the letter notes.

“The Love of thy neighbour, and the spiritual bond with our older brothers in the faith obliges us to care for the places that bear witness to the centuries-long presence of Jews in Poland and the memory of their contribution to the culture of our multinational and multireligious country.”

The document pays tribute to the conciliatory efforts of previous members of the Roman Catholic Church, including Polish pontiff Pope John Paul II, who was the first pope to visit a synagogue, and a committed leader of dialogue with Jews.

The so-called ‘Nostra aetate’ (In our time) declaration made during the Second Vatican Council 50 years ago under Pope Paul VI is regarded as a breakthrough regarding relations with non-Christian religions.

Thaw

During the communist era, academic debate concerning the Holocaust was largely frozen in Poland.

An anti-Zionist campaign led by the government in 1968 compelled several thousand Polish Jews who had survived the war to emigrate. After that, Jewish issues were taboo in many aspects of officially endorsed Polish culture.

It was not until the 1980s that a reassessment of Polish-Jewish relations began in earnest, a trend that gathered pace following the collapse of communism in 1989.

Previously little discussed stains on Poland’s wartime treatment of Jews have been highlighted in recent years, owing to books such as Jan Gross’s Neighbours (2001), which focused on what had been a largely forgotten massacre of Jews by ethnic Poles in the town of Jedwabne, north eastern Poland.

Such issues remain highly emotive and divisive in Poland. (nh/rk)

Under any sane ethno-nationalist framework, the burden should not be on ethno-nationalists to explain why Jews ‘should be regarded as a separate people who ought to live outside of Europe’, the burden instead should be on everyone else to explain and to attempt to justify why Jews ‘should be allowed’ to persistently be part of Europe while not being European.

For every other non-European population group whose people are inside Europe in any number, that is how the burden of proof works when having that discussion. You have to prove how you are useful to Europe, at the very least. But mysteriously, when it comes to the issue of Jews, that burden of proof is reversed. Why?

• Is it because Jews can ‘pass as white’?
• Or is it because of extensive application of guilt narratives in the post war environment?
• Or is it because Christianity is part of the Judaic jurisdiction?

Oh, actually, it’s probably all of the above.

Adrean Arlott wrote an article back in May 2013 in which he touched on this issue in a broad sense within the United States:

Compulsory Diversity News, ‘Save us Jebus!’, 18 May 2013:

I have been debating Christianity’s lack of virtues today. I ask you this: Does Christianity do more to help or hurt White people? If we consider anti-racist to be code word for anti-White, then I vote it hurts White people.

Orthodox Church: (Source)
...we reject phyletism, that is racial discrimination and nationalistic contention, enmities and discord in the Church of Christ as being contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the sacred canons of our holy Fathers, who support the holy Church and adorn the whole of the Christian life, leading to divine Godliness.

Catholic Church: (Source)
We begin with three facts. First, racism exists here; it is part of the American landscape. Second, racism is completely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Third, all baptized Catholics have a moral obligation to work toward the elimination of racism.

Episcopal Church: (Source)
Racism is totally inconsistent with the Gospel, therefore, must be confronted and eradicated. Basing its message on the baptismal covenant, the Bishops invited all baptized Christians to enter into a new covenant to fight racism and, “proclaim the vision of God’s new creation in which the dignity of every human being is honored.”

Baptist Church: (Source)
“We are all saddened when any sin, including the sin of racism, rears its head,” said Southern Baptist Convention spokesman Sing Oldham. “Part of our gospel is that we are being redeemed. We are flawed, failed creatures and redemption is a process.”

Westboro Baptist Church (Source)
...the Scripture doesn’t support racism. God never says “thou shalt not be black.” However, He does say, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22).

Mormon Church: (Source)
“The church’s position is clear,” LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy said. “We believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the church. We do not tolerate racism in any form. For a time in the church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent,” Purdy said. “It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”

Lutheran Church: (Source)
Racism is one of the most destructive sins in today’s world. It refuses to honor God’s mighty acts in creation, redemption, and sanctification. Racism simply does not trust the gospel. It builds on human pride and prejudice, abusing power for selfish advantage. Racism dishonors God, neighbor, and self. It rejects the meaning in God’s becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ, because in rejecting another person one rejects Jesus Christ.

Presbyterian Church: (Source)
The Dismantling Racism and Privilege Ministry Team assists the presbytery in its commitment to dismantle racism and privilege. Its purpose is to increase awareness and work toward the eradication of intentional and unintentional racism and privilege at critical decision points in the life of the presbytery, and to assist sessions and congregations in dismantling racism and privilege among our church constituency.

Methodist Church: (Source)
At the beginning of the 21st century, the United Methodist Church is focusing on racism and promoting diversity with more vigor than ever. It is actively promoting more inclusiveness and diversity in its institutions and leadership. One of its 14 churchwide agencies, the Commission on Religion and Race, focuses on those issues, and caucuses such as Black Methodists for Church Renewal and Methodists Associated Representing the Cause of Hispanic Americans also keep them in front of the church. Through programs such as Strengthening the Black Church for the 21st Century, the National Plan for Hispanic Ministries, the Council on Korean-American Ministries and the Native American Comprehensive Plan, the denomination is building up racial-ethnic congregations.

Pretty interesting, Adrean Arlott had done a good service to his readers when he pointed that out to them.

The fact that Arlott has drawn attention to this in the past, should provide even more of a context to how well-known and well-understood it is to ethno-nationalists, that Christian churches are not capable of being allies of ethno-nationalists and never will be. Even the most cynical political calculations could not bring anyone to the conclusion that organised Christianity could be utilised in the defence of anyone’s ethnic genetic interests (EGI).

It’s so bad in fact, that the Christian churches promote not only white genocide—not even metaphorically but literally—but also for the rest of the planet they offer nothing other than genocide either.

For example, plenty of church bodies espouse the position of mass mestizaje for Central Americans, thus advocating the continuation of the genocide against the native peoples of the Americas.

Here’s one example of that:

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ‘Ethnic Specific and Multicultural Ministries - Latino’: (emphasis added)
We are a community that confesses its origin and identity in the creative, redemptive and sanctifying work of God. The great diversity that characterizes us is a process of continual biological and cultural “mestizaje,” and our unity is in Jesus Christ, who gathers us around word and water, wine and bread.

Truly mindblowing.

So really, in what world would anyone think that ethnic advocacy from ‘a Christian perspective’ could ever be possible? In what retarded world is ‘cultural Christianity’—which is to say, the idea of a political alliance between Christianity and ethno-nationalism—even a thing that could be worth considering for more than five seconds? It’s just completely ridiculous.

The real and actually-existing physical manifestation of Christianity is one which is intrinsically opposed to the existence of pretty much everyone’s ethnic groups. It’s not that Christianity somehow acquired an ethnicity-destroying agenda after the year 1968. It was already doing that from the start, it’s just that the ‘anti-racist’ cultural phenomenon that manifested in the west after 1968 offered Christianity the ability to express its full ‘anti-racist’ potential while uninhibited by secular interference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When jokes threaten to become reality

A long time ago at the beginning of this ‘refugee crisis’, people used to make a joke and say, “If this keeps up, liberals might start asking for a bridge to be built so that no one would need to smuggle humans across water any more”. Who could have known that this joke would become a jinx?

Watch this:

Youtube: The Bridge (28 Sep 2013)

Austria’s refugee coordinator Christian Konrad has called for the construction of a 200km long bridge from Al Huwariyah in Tunisia to Agrigento in Sicily. This is after Konrad had previously called for housing solutions to be constructed in Austria as hundreds of asylum seekers currently staying at the Traiskirchen reception centre in Lower Austria are sleeping in tents due to overcrowding there.

Education Minister Gabriele Heinisch-Hosek is tasked with devising proposals on how to integrate refugee into Austrian schools. This integration will likely be of the sort that parents of non-Muslim children will have no ability to veto. Integration of school systems never seems to come ‘organically’.

Social Minister Rudolf Hundstorfer will be looking for ways to ease the strictures of employment laws, so as to make it easier for big businesses to employ refugees, and for the purpose of lowering the standards that govern social bargaining at the enterprise and state level, the standards which Austria actually would have had to agree to have upheld upon joining the ERM back in March 1979. So now they have come full circle, and have ended up considering imposing a very ‘American’ form of social bargaining and employment laws, even though the European approach was supposed to have some significant differences.

Under the so-called emergency, the crisis that ‘demands’ compromise, one of the supposed prized qualities of the European labour market, will be dismantled for the benefit of a certain cross section of large companies which see it as being in their interest to use these migrants as a battering ram against any attempts to have any kind of organised labour movement in the continent. It is against this backdrop of the tendencies within the Austrian ruling class, that this bridge proposal is set.

Construction companies

The construction company STRABAG AG would get the contract for the bridge. STRABAG AG is a company that was created through the merger of ILBAU and STRABAG in the 1930s, both being founded by Anton Lerchbaumer. It acquired Deutsche Asphalt Group in 2002, Waltr Bau Group in 2005, it took on a majority stake in Ed Züblin in 2005, Adanti SpA, KIRCHNER Holding GmbH, F. Kirchhoff AG and Deutsche Telekom Immobilien und Service GmbH in 2008.

In 2013 the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic stated that it believed that one of the companies of the STRABAG Group participated in bid rigging cartel of construction companies in that country. Amongst the companies involved in that cartel, was a company called Doprastav a.s., which is part of Doprastav Group. The illegal conduct centred around the D1 Highway which was constructed from 2004 and continued to have work done on it and its surroundings up to at least 2010.

STRABAG is managed by CEO Thomas Birtel. The Chairman of the supervisory board at STRABAG is Alfred Gusenbauer. Alfred Gusenbauer is an Austrian politician who until 2008 had spent his entire professional life as an employee of the Social Democratic Party of Austria or as a parliamentary representative. He headed the Social Democratic Party of Austria from 2000 to 2008, and served as Chancellor of Austria from January 2007 to December 2008. Since then he has positioned himself as a consultant and lecturer, and as a member of supervisory boards of Austrian companies, STRABAG being one of these.

Gusenbauer is known for having exploited the occurrence of the BAWAG Scandal, in which BAWAG—the bank of the Austrian Trade Union Federation—engaged in failed bets using risky undocumented derivative instruments held off-balance-sheet. After the losses became unmanageable, Fritz Verzetnitsch resigned from the Austrian Trade Union Federation in disgrace, and Gusenbauer used this opportunity to exclude all of the Trade Union leaders from the ballot lists of the Social Democratic Party, an action which moved the party to the right structurally.

STRABAG’s Gusenbauer and Austria’s refugee coordinator Christian Konrad obviously are not strangers to each other, seeing as they come from the same party and travel in the same social circles. In the world of business and politics, it’s quite often about who you know and who you’ve worked with. Aside from the fact that STRABAG is one of the largest construction companies in Austria, there is also the political connection that would exist between persons within the state and within that company’s structure.

Russian-Jewish Mafia involvement

A notable stakeholder in STRABAG is Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, a extremely wealthy Russian oligarch, who—when he is not exploiting the mineral and energy resources of impoverished Asians in Siberia—also has for some reason cultivated over the years a very amicable relationship with people who may or may not be associated with former Russian soldiers who had been veterans in Afghanistan who may be part of the presently existing heroin smuggling operations which have been occurring at an ever-heightening rate since the year 2005.

Additionally, Deripaska has a good relationship with the Russian-Israeli Mafia, which helped him with the purchase of Sayansk aluminium plant in Siberia when he was first starting up as a businessperson in the 1990s. He has a especially tight relationship with the Israeli business and crime figure known as Michael Cherney, who personally assessed Deripaska and pulled the necessary strings on his behalf. Deripaska has since operated in the debt of Cherney and the Russian-Israeli Mafia. Cherney also operates security think tank groups, which may or may not be actually just front groups which allow him and his criminal networks to plug into the stream of intelligence exchanges that go on in the War on Terror, so that he can smuggle contraband through conflict zones with less risk of detection. Cherney also publishes anti-fascist publications through the Michael Cherney Foundation which is registered as a ‘charitable foundation’.

Interfacing with activist groups

The proposal for this Africa-to-Europe 200km long bridge, whose construction contract sits at the centre of all of these groups and individuals, also is associated with a local Austrian ‘anti-racist’ activist group. That group is named Zentrum für Politische Schönheit, which in English is ‘Centre for Political Beauty’.

The Centre for Political Beauty refers to itself as a group that “makes art” for the purpose of encouraging the European peoples to adopt a more liberal-humanitarian outlook on the world. Much of what they do is done for the sake of “not rendering void of the legacy of the Holocaust”. One of their members, Massimo Sestini, is perhaps known to Majorityrights readers because he is one of the persons who has consistently been providing ‘humanistic’ photography of the migrants to various media outlets including the British Newspaper, the Guardian, since at least mid-2014. The power of images cannot be underestimated.

The Centre for Political Beauty takes its activism beyond simply creating static pieces of art, and in fact, merges art with political action while invoking shadows of past events which they believe hold immense sway over the European psyche.

Here are four relevant examples of them merging art with political action:

• They have removed sections of the Berlin Wall monument, the sections that contain Christian cross logos with names on them. They have removed some of these because they have transferred those crosses to the outer border fences of the European Union, and affixed them there. In some images African migrants are posing with the crosses for photographs. This is a kind of art creation that is apparently supposed to symbolise the idea that the internal wall between the West Germany and East Germany that was removed after the fall of the Berlin Wall, is ontologically the same as the border between Europe and Africa which they believe would be removed after the fall of racially cohesive European identity.


• They plan to actually cut holes into some segments of the EU border fences on 09 November 2015, during the commemoration of the 25th Anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall. This would allow migrants to break through the fences at the precise timing of the celebrations, so that they can link the celebration of one thing, with the celebration of another thing that they plan to superimpose onto it.


• Since the idea for the creation of a bridge between Africa and Europe is a project that would take them until the year 2030 to complete if it gets started on time and isn’t thwarted in some way, they want to call on Austria to supply state funding for 1,000 rescue platforms to be permanently installed into international waters between North Africa and Italy. The first one of these platforms will be unveiled in the water on 01 October 2015, in Licata Harbour. The press will be invited at 0630 on that day.


• Dead African and Middle Eastern bodies will be exhumed and transported from the sea and into the capital city of Germany. The bodies will be displayed and placed into open shallow graves in plain view, so that persons running the media operation can then talk about the ongoing crisis in terms that have allusions to the narratives of the Jewish Holocaust.

They are absolutely serious. It would not be hyperbolic to say that the intention behind these actors who have come together to make these things happen, is that they would like to inflict extreme demographic damage onto the European Union.

The resources being allocated to these plans, and all such operations, stand in stark contrast to the fact that countries in the South of Europe have been placed under austerity policies so harsh that civil society in countries like Greece are breaking down, and money allocated to even basic state functions like national defence have been so low that the topic of whether enough counties are meeting the basic NATO obligations is often raised.

Yet, mysteriously, certain richer state governments of north-western and south-central Europe seem to be very capable of sourcing funds for extravagant migrant rescue operations and even funds for building a 200km long bridge. Where is it coming from? It’s coming from your bank account via taxation.

It’s all the fault of the hippies! they took drugs and had fun without my piece of ass! They had the nerve to not want to die in Vietnam to siphon-off those pesky excess beta males…who I don’t want to be bothered with ...eeew, get away ....eeew.

It’s all the fault of hippies (White men who did not conduct themselves like dominant baboons)....  they should’ve followed right-wing obligations, should’ve been obedient to war-mongers, submit to draft, go rape and kill Vietnamese...
 
                                                     

We should take your lead, not blame Jewish and right-wing objectivism for the perfidy of that era, we should accept the right-wing and Jewish rendition of how the events of that time counted…  none of this midt-dasein stuff...

Men should be real men, confident, taking directives, like a few decades before, when “Hitler was just trying to rescue Poland from the Soviets” (remark snuck-in last 30 seconds) lol

READ MORE...

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

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

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

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

Is this the end of Schengen?

         

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

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

What is Schengen?

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

Why are people talking about the end of Schengen?

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

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

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

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

Has anything like this happened before?

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

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

So what’s different this time?

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

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

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

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

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