Majorityrights News > Category: White Nationalism

               
Typical Mulatto behavior: Mulatto punk puts on brass knuckles, sucker punches a White boy who was standing on a skateboard and not looking in his direction;

                   
..then repeatedly punches his head against the pavement while he is on the ground.

And NO, White boys do NOT act like this too.

The Mulatto punk, Kane Millsap, is the product of a White mother and a black - of course absentee - father.

Mother of the Mulatto

       
I gasped when I saw this video. This black boy and White girl seated comfortably together seem quite pleased after watching it.

Note: unless you want your White daughter to wind up a coal burner, do not condone her being comfortable in a juxtaposition such as this.

England suffered one of the most humiliating defeats in their history after Iceland came from behind 2 -1.

Match report

Coach Roy Hodgson resigns ...goes the way of fellow mercenary maiden David Cameron… it’s not really the yang of karma, but hermeneutic feedback of another leak in the hull that needs tending ....all a part of getting your ship in order, England. Along with your Brexit victory there needed to be humbling defeat - albeit on a trivial but symbolic level - a lesson in the integrity of losing with your own men rather winning with mercenaries in international play.

Now, if you are going to lose to a tiny country of 330,000, a country that has the integrity to play with its native White men…

Why not play with your native English men and see how it turns out?

Better to lose with your native men than to win with mercenaries..

The Times, ‘MP’s dying words: ‘I can’t get up, my pain is too much’’, 18 Jun 2016:

Jo Cox’s last words as she lay dying were to tell her assistant that she could not get up because “my pain is too much”.

In a dramatic account of the MP’s final moments, Gulham Maniyar described how his daughter Fazila Aswat, who worked as Mrs Cox’s assistant, cradled her in her arms as she lay covered in blood.

That was the scene of the attack, an attack not just on one MP, but on the institution of parliamentary democracy itself. I open with that quote for context, to remind everyone of the gravity of what we are actually talking about here.

The Occidental Observer has an article called ‘The selective compassion of Jo Cox’, by Francis Carr Begbie, in which he, and I assume the editors at Occidental Observer share his view since they didn’t dissent from it, comes out and trashes the reputation of Jo Cox and tries to style as almost the worst thing that ever happened to the United Kingdom.

It’s truly astonishing to see the amount of hatred being directed toward an MP who was tragically assassinated by a crazed gunman, a woman who most of these writers were unaware of the existence of before she was killed, and who stood on the right wing of the Labour Party. She had also only held her seat in Batley and Spen for one year.

Mind reading and time travelling

The range of criticisms directed against the deceased is pretty wide. For example, Begbie accuses Cox of not caring about the white members of her constituency, because she didn’t comment on the Muslim rape epidemic when it had reached her town. Begbie writes, “of all the subjects she enjoyed sounding off on, this world-famous crisis affecting the poorest Whites on her doorstep was not one of them”. What was she supposed to say? How do they know what she was or wasn’t thinking about?

Jo Cox became the MP for Batley and Spen in May 2015, everything that preceded her taking that seat could not possibly be attributed to her, yet somehow ethno-nationalist sites across the internet have transformed her into the symbol of everything that is ‘wrong’ with Batley and Spen. That district became more demographically South Asian in 1950 because British businesses decided that they wanted South Asian workers from Gujarat, Punjab, and Kashmir to migrate to West Yorkshire to desperately protect the already-in-fact doomed textile industry which Britain had been maintaining with the use of protectionist policies since the 1880s.

Jo Cox showing up in 2015, cannot possibly be blamed for making the best of the constituency that the bourgeoisie themselves had given her. This makes no sense. It makes no sense at all.

She only just got there

No article is complete at the Occidental Observer without some kind anti-feminist insinuation, and so Begbie strangely includes this line, “Her constituency seat had been represented by local White men for decades so an all-female shortlist had to be imposed on the local party to ensure an acceptable candidate could be given this plum.” What complete nonsense! No mention at all is made of the fact that the constituency was redrawn multiple times and only came into existence in its present form in 1997. Neither is any mention made of the fact that the ‘local white man’ who held that seat was none other than Mike Wood who held that seat from 1997 to 2015. Mike Wood literally presided over every single development that the Occidental Observer complains about, including the gerrymandering and creation of the constituency called ‘Batley and Spen’, yet no mention is made of this man’s existence! He is merely glossed over as a ‘local white man’, as though that somehow makes everything okay.

Mike Wood presides over Batley and Spen for 18 years, is blamed for nothing. Jo Cox runs it for 13 months, gets shot by some idiot, and suddenly the Occidental Observer has magically discovered that everything is the fault of Jo Cox. Truly breathtaking. Fucking incredible. Maybe Jo Cox is a time traveller, she time travelled to 1997, and to 1950, perhaps?

Middle-Eastern migrant strategy

Begbie also writes of Jo Cox, that “she was also calculating enough to help more dubious causes, as when she lent her name to a government minister who was lobbying for Britain to begin bombing in Syria”.

What is dubious about this? Nothing. Begbie is referring to the letter which Cox wrote in a Guardian article on 11 Oct 2015, co-written with Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell, in which she places the rescuing of civilians at the centre of the parliamentary debate, and advocates for the creation of safe zones inside Syria so that the migrant influx can be stemmed.

Yes, you read that correctly. I will quote her directly. Here:

The Guardian / Jo Cox MP, ‘British forces could help achieve an ethical solution in Syria’, 11 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

[...]

Some may think that a military component has no place in an ethical response to Syria. We completely disagree. It is not ethical to wish away the barrel bombs from the Syrian government when you have the capacity to stop them. The deaths and fear generated by these indiscriminate air attacks are the main drivers of the refugee crisis in Europe. Nor is it ethical to watch when villages are overrun by Isis fighters who make sex slaves of children and slaughter their fellow Muslims, when we have the capability to hold them back.

What is critical in advancing any military component is that the protection of civilians must be at the centre of the mission. This objective becomes ever more imperative in the light of Russia’s bombing in recent days. We need a military component that protects civilians as a necessary prerequisite to any future UN or internationally provided safe havens. The creation of safe havens inside Syria would eventually offer sanctuary from both the actions of Assad and Isis, as we cannot focus on Isis without an equal focus on Assad. They would save lives, reduce radicalisation and help to slow down the refugee exodus.

The approach of focusing on civilian protection will also make a political solution more likely. Preventing the regime from killing civilians, and signalling intent to Russia, is far more likely to compel the regime to the negotiating table than anything currently being done or mooted. Of course, a military approach by itself won’t work, nor will any of the other components. Only through an integrated strategy with the protection of civilians at its core can we rescue something from this crisis.

[...]

I invite anyone to tell me what precisely is wrong with that. No one can tell me what is wrong with that, because there’s nothing wrong with it. Some may ask, “But isn’t her mention of Assad a problem?” In actual practice, no. Only actions against ISIL could have had efficiacy since we know Russia’s presence in the theatre had already made it impossible for the west to directly attack the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in the first place. The way I’ve highlighted bold text in that quotation is entirely deliberate.

Allowing all of the refugees to be contained within safe zones inside Syria and Iraq, would prevent migrants of all kinds—whether they are fleeing from the SAA or from ISIL—from actually feeling the need to cross to Europe, seriuosly reducing the scale of the crisis and accomplishing an objective that people concerned about migration ought to have been able to agree with.

Obviously the conflict should not even be happening. But it is happening and so selecting a solution that does not involve trying to house all the Arabs inside Europe, made her stance significantly better than the ridiculous mainstream stance of ‘just open the borders and absorb all migrants forever’.

This general pattern is similar to the idea that Anthony Zinni suggested.

I’ll quote Anthony Zinni:

TIME, ‘U.S. Military Plan For Looming ISIS Offensive Takes Shape’, 26 Feb 2015 (emphasis added):

There’s only one way to take land, and that’s with well-trained ground forces. That’s why retired Marine general Anthony Zinni thinks the time is right for Obama to acknowledge reality and tell the nation he is sending 10,000 American troops into the fight. Zinni ran the U.S. military in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions as chief of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000, and still has business dealings in the region. He’s just back from a trip to Cairo, and he says he’s hearing a growing willingness among regional powers to put troops on the ground to fight ISIS—so long as the U.S. is alongside them.

Rumbles from Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates all suggest those nations are willing to fight on the ground. “I think this is all designed to try to push the United States to put something on the ground,” Zinni said Feb. 23. “If we put a couple of brigades in, I think you’d get five or six regional countries. And I think you could twist the arms of the French, the Belgians and maybe even the Brits.”

Two U.S. brigades, with their supporting personnel, would total about 10,000 troops. Zinni says the nations in the region are not coordinating their efforts in an effort to lure the U.S. into the fight on the ground. “But they’re getting scared, and have gotten angry at ISIS’s atrocious behavior and they’re willing to step up,” he says. “It would have to be a whole set of bilateral relationships, and we would have to pull it together.

The U.S. would have to act as the catalyst to make this happen, says Zinni, who was an early advocate of sending U.S. ground troops into the fight. “There’s an opportunity now to put a small piece in terms of ground forces in there, and get a lot more from these countries, and be the glue that puts it together,” he says. “There is no unifying structure and no single entity out there that can bring this all together—it has to be the United States,” Zinni insists.

But what about Obama’s pledge to keep U.S. combat boots out of the fight? “They have a moment here and it’ll blow by if they’re not careful,” he says. Obama “could always say that the situation on the ground has changed, and the willingness of the Arabs to stand up to this gives us this moment,” says Zinni, showing why he’s a better general than a politician.

What Zinni was describing there, is very close to ‘Seek, Destroy, Clear, Hold’, a strategy currently being employed in Operation Zarb-e-Azb by the Pakistani Army with relative success.

It stems the flow of migrants because by holding the zones that have been cleared and rebuilding infrastructure on the fly, it prevents migrants from making dangerous trips to flee the violence, since obviously they could just stay in the location that they are in and receive assistance and protection around the clock.

The political problem is that selling ‘SDCH’ to whiny white western liberal populations is next to impossible, and that’s where MPs like Jo Cox are incredibly useful. She could provide the political and ‘humanitarian’ argument which constituents needed to hear, that the defence sector was unable to convincingly enunciate. I shouldn’t have to be explaining this, but what Jo Cox’s feelings about entirely hypothetical refugees in the United Kingdom were, didn’t frankly matter, given that the part of her plan that takes precedence in terms of the order of battle is that she supported the creation of safe zones in Syria.

No one would have to worry about whether she is or is not going to cuddle and appease Syrian and Iraqi refugees in the United Kingdom, if those migrants had never arrived due to the creation of safe zones in Syria. This is basic logic.

When you’ve been around white liberals and experienced them for long enough, you learn to accept that there are some aspects of their psyche which are biased toward indiscriminate kindness, and this is a bias that is not going to be changed by anyone’s words, but if they are willing to help find common sense solutions to problems then it is fine to link up with them in order to scrape out some limited gains in a bad situation.

What is treason anyway?

Jo Cox was among the best that you could expect from the Labour Party. It would be unreasonable to expect anything greater than what she had offered.

This is why I never had a big problem with Jo Cox, beyond the obvious fact that she’s a liberal. I was deeply saddened the day that she died.

Jo Cox is not ‘a traitor’.

Tom Mair is the real traitor here, and if the death penalty were not unfortunately abolished in the United Kingdom, I would hope that Mair would end up being hung from the gallows until dead. Mair has probably done more to assist our enemies than anyone else in recent years. Perhaps Mair will end up being inexplicably and mysteriously hung from the side of his bedpost using his own clothes knotted into a noose, but I can only hope. Hey, it happens sometimes, at times the CCTV in prisons just suddenly stops working for no apparent reason.

In overview, ethno-nationalists need to get more politically savvy, and stop running to defend every mentally ill white male who makes grief-stricken faces after committing some absurd, stupid, and horrific crime. Tom Mair was not a victim of anything, if he didn’t like the fact that all the South Asian Muslims had been concentrated into one area of that West Yorkshire constituency, he should have exercised some patience and self-control, thanked the stars that self-segregation had occurred and moved to one of the white areas of the constituency instead. He was not being forced to integrate with them, and Jo Cox had only just arrived in the constituency in May 2015 and had literally done nothing to him.

Tom Mair is stupid. This is not even 57-dimensional chess. It’s simple 2-dimensional chess. But he was a fucking idiot consumed by his own sense of entitlement and lack of strategic thinking. He is stupid, he is subhuman trash. And he is condemned.

The Polish case for exiting the European Union

Breitbart, “Polexit: Meet The Polish Eurosceptics Championing The Case Against The European Union”, 22 May 2016:

In a further boost to the European Union (EU) referendum ‘Leave’ campaign, Great Britain’s key European ally, Poland, has not only been turning decisively Eurosceptic but has also found legal grounds to ban the EU flag.

There have of course been the widely reported and exaggerated developments – such as Poland sending shockwaves through the Europhile parts of the EU by removing the Union’s flags from the Polish Prime Minister’s conference room last November.

That move may have been merely symbolic, but it served as a gentle reminder to Europe of a change of guard in Warsaw by Andrzej Duda, the Euro-realist Polish President since May 2015. His appointment was soon followed by his Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) party forming Polish government last October with a decisive victory.

In March 2016 Poland at last introduced a scientific element to its EU debate. The formal cross-party Parliamentary Euro-realist Group (Parlamentarny Zespół Eurorealistyczny) was mandated to evaluate the Polish-EU relationship via actual cost-benefit analysis, as well as investigating the political and legal implications of Poland’s relationship with the EU.

Jacek Wilk

Congress of the New Right (Kongres Nowej Prawicy) – whose four MEPs entered the European Parliament in 2014 with a programme of reduction of EU prerogatives – has an MP in the Polish Parliament in Jacek Wilk, party chairman, who now channels these proposals via the Euro-realist Group.

He mentions that Lisbon Treaty allows for EU members’ exit, whilst guaranteeing a right to free trade, and references EEA and EFTA as the preferred options. Mr. Wilk points out that the current cross-continent standardisation drive, coupled with increasing socialism, are intentional moves that suit the strategy of EU’s undisputed leader, Germany. He considers the hopes of fixing the sclerotic EU bloc futile. 

Tomasz Rzymkowski

Tomasz Rzymkowski, chairman of the Euro-realist Group and a Kukiz’15 / Ruch Narodowy (National Movement) parliamentarian stresses that opening up a debate is a must, given that until recently Poles have been subjected to one of the most intense Europhile propagandas on the continent via the largely German-owned media. He believes that by joining the EU, and hence allowing the more advanced Western economies to freely compete with Poland, the country may have forsaken its chances of development and instead solidified the position of a European low-cost periphery.

The group also aims to investigate the distortions to the Polish economy created by “EU grants” (i.e. largely Polish money circulated back to Poland via Brussels), as well as the indebtedness of local governments resulting from EU-facilitated financing of white elephant projects, such as underused airports.

Like many other euro-sceptics, euro-realists or increasingly even those concerned with preserving the EU, Tomasz Rzymkowski admits that the Union should be scaled back to its European Economic Area (EEA) foundations, where it purely acts a guarantor and facilitator of the four freedoms of movement (i.e. people, goods, services, and capital). Completely understanding of the members’ wish to exit and given the United Kingdom is recognised as Poland’s key ally, he confirms a serious commitment to cooperation in the event of a Brexit.

Robert Winnicki

Robert Winnicki, a National Movement parliamentarian and party chairman, is another prominent member of the Parliamentary Euro-realist Group. As much as he has some hope for reforming the EU, he believes that in its current shape, and in case of insufficient decentralising reforms, it would be in Poland’s interest to leave.

The recently resurgent Visegrad Group alliance of Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary with a possible addition of Belarus could provide a future international cooperation option if the right economic, political and defence-related bilateral agreements were secured. The idea is reminiscent of Piłsudski’s Intermarium (Międzymorze), albeit in a more realistic and minimalist form.

The Euro-realist Group is further tasked with assessing the compatibility of Poland’s EU accession treaty with the Polish constitution and investigating all the subsequent legislative additions the European Union has rolled out that impact on the Union’s relationship with Poland and the Polish law, inclusive of the Lisbon Treaty in particular.

Prof Krystyna Pawłowicz

Needless to say, the group consists of some foremost legal experts such as Professor Krystyna Pawłowicz, a PiS parliamentarian and one of the more prominent voices of opposition to the EU within her party, who as a former Constitutional Tribunal judge argues that Poland’s participation in the European Union in the present situation, whereby the EU law supersedes Polish law, directly contravenes Polish constitution.

Prof. Pawłowicz points out that the presence of the EU flag in Poland is illegal and that the EU tends towards a complete centralisation, which is at odds with the national interests of member states, including those of Poland. Her clear Euroscepticism sounds very natural to our British readers, especially with Euro-sceptics going officially mainstream last summer with the announcement of the Brexit referendum and Tory politicians coming out in their droves in support, but as the Eastern EU major parties are concerned that Pawłowicz is just one of the few voices fully critical of the failed EU concept. 

Her clear Euroscepticism sounds very natural to British readers, especially with Euro-sceptics going officially mainstream last summer with the announcement of the Brexit referendum. But as the Eastern EU major parties are concerned Prof. Pawłowicz’s is just one of the few voices fully critical of the failed EU concept. 

For the generations of Poles resident in the United Kingdom, Euroscepticism comes quite naturally. Just recently there used to be a Friends of Poland in UKIP club affiliated with the Eurosceptic party; the Polish Conservatives outfit also boasts a considerable Eurosceptic representation and there now is a Poles for Britain campaign.

It is therefore a very welcome development that Poles in Poland have come of EU age and we now observe some clear opposition to the European Union.

As such, although a Polexit referendum seems to be some way off, the debate around the real merits of the EU has at last been kicked off and participation of PiS parliamentarians ensures no empty accusations of furthering Russia’s interests can be thrown about by the Eurocentric camp.

       
        “Piekło” means hell.

So long as it is necessary to endure eccentric pressures and at times draconian leanings from Poland’s PiS party, we may as well allow them to work in our interests where they will - against EU imposition, markedly with regard to immigration.

Brexit for the extroverted: Get this Bexit party started

                       
                        Brexit for the introspective: Emerald City

                        I’m lost in a sweet dream   ..I’m living on chocolate ice cream.

                        I went for the rental. Those costumes were so continental.

                        How (((coincidental))).

                        They said everything would be fine.  ..ho ho. I think I’m ready to go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are really two important stories for White Nationalists that TNO has exposed in an article regarding Trump’s campaign.

First, that Trump has denied affinity with Matteo Salvini, the head of Italy’s anti-immigration party, Lega Nord. This denial came after Trump had garnered Salvini’s support and publicly commended him.

Secondly, what was a (((dead ringer))) from the start about the (((out of no-where))) viability of Trump’s Presidential Campaign has been corroborated by his son - i.e., that Trump’s (((campaign)) gained (((support))) by his agreement to denounce and challenge the Iran deal.

TNO, “Trump Rudely Dumps Italy’s Salvini”, 4 June 2016:

Donald Trump has rudely dumped Italy’s Lega Nord leader Matteo Salvini, saying he “never wanted to meet him” and “didn’t even know him”—only a few weeks after meeting and posing with the European populist.

In April this year, Trump met up and posed for pictures with Salvini at a rally in Wilkes-Barre, northeastern Pennsylvania, and, according to the La Repubblica newspaper, expressed the hope that Salvini would become the prime minister of Italy.

Now, however, Trump has completely reversed his positon. In an interview with journalist Michael Wolff published in the Hollywood Reporter (“The Donald Trump Conversation: Politics’ ‘Dark Heart’ Is Having the Best Time Anyone’s Ever Had,” June 01, 2016), Trump has completely distanced himself from Salvini.

In the interview, when asked about Salvini, Trump declared: “I didn’t want to meet him. I didn’t even know him.”

As Wolff wrote:

I ask if he sees himself as having similarities with leaders of the growing anti-immigrant (some would say outright racist) European nativist movements, like Marine Le Pen in France and Matteo Salvini in Italy, whom the Wall Street Journal reported Trump had met with and endorsed in Philadelphia. (“Matteo, I wish you become the next Italian premier soon,” Trump was quoted as saying.) In fact, he insists he didn’t meet Salvini. “I didn’t want to meet him.” And, in sum, he doesn’t particularly see similarities — or at least isn’t interested in them — between those movements and the anti-immigrant nationalism he is promoting in this country.

Salvini responded:

When asked why Trump would distance himself in this way, Salvini told the La Repubblica that this “makes me laugh…that interview is unbelievable. I assure you, a dozen emails were exchanged in preparation for that meeting. I didn’t jump from an airplane with a hat and flag.”

[...]

Whatever the reason, the reality remains that Trump’s public repudiation of Salvini is a clear indication that the maverick businessman-turned politician is starting to be “brought into line” by the establishment.

Another disturbing recent revelation about Trump has come with the claim by his son Eric that the decision to run for president was driven primarily by the “deal” struck with Iran over that nation’s mythical “atom bomb” project.

Related Story. by Compulsory Diversity News - Dear WN, “before the cuck crows, three times Donald will three times deny ye.”

When asked about Salvini, Trump declared: “I didn’t want to meet him. I didn’t even know him.”