Majorityrights News > Category: Activism

Sea Watch captain Carola Rackete brought murderers, rapists and torturers to Italy

By ARTHUR LYONS 30 September 2019

Carola Rackete, the infamous captain of the NGO migrant transport vessel Sea-Watch 3, brought three men who ran a migrant detention center in Libya where migrants were raped, tortured, and murdered.

According to a report by Il Giornale, three of the 40 migrants who were picked up by Rackete’s boat are men who’ve been accused of raping, torturing, and murdering people in Libya. The suspects are said to have been arrested in the reception center in Messina, Italy.

Police had originally concealed the arrests which reportedly occurred on the same day that the migrants disembarked from the ship. “The captain transported three immigrants accused of torture on the Sea Watch,” Franco Grilli of Il Giornale writes.

“We cannot rule it out, but we have no precise information,” Sea Watch spokesman Ruben Neugebauer told German news agency DPA about the report.

The three men have been formally accused of ‘a criminal association dedicated to the management of an illegal prison center’, complete with torture, rape, kidnapping and even murder.

In response to the news, Italy’s most trusted politician and leader of the national populist Lega party, Matteo Salvini, wrote: “Not only did she violate the law and ram a Guardia di Finanza patrol boat; on June 29th Carola Rackete of the Sea Watch 3 unloaded into Italy three violent migrants accused of rape, kidnapping and murder. Democratic Party (PD) parliamentarians had demanded the landing of all immigrants, including those now suspected of being ferocious criminals.”

According to Chiara Giannini, who cites ‘reliable sources’, the new interior minister Luciana Lamorgese had asked for the embarrassing news not to be published. But instead, members of the real press made the arrests public, along with the names of the three suspects – Mohammed Condè, 27, Hameda Ahmed, 26 and Mahmoud Ashuia, 24.

Condé is from Guinea, whereas Ahmed and Ashuia are Egyptian.

The Black and White Clown Show.

Dangerfield falls into the liberal game a bit, by continuing to demonize “racism” (in essence, social classification and the capacity for necessary discrimination thereupon), calling the anti-fa, in their “Anti-Whiteness” conference, the “real racists” - but this is an honest mistake that indicates his good will; therefore, while I may take issue with the theoretical error of necessity, the overall thrust of his passionate criticism is good and well enough articulated.

For good measure, lets add, Anti-Racism is Cartesian - can be said to be a Jewish construct, anti-White weaponization at that - it is not innocent, it is prejudice, it is prejudice against prejudice (necessary discrimination based on patterns), it is hurting and it is killing people.

Voice of Europe, 21 Sept 2019:

Slovenia: Citizen defense force formed to stop illegal migration

Citizens in the small central European state of Slovenia have formed a civil defense force to put a stop to illegal migrants entering their country from Croatia.

The Balkan route for migrants heading north from Turkey and Greece into Germany is well-known. However, thanks to Hungary’s national populist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the classic Balkan route which starts from Turkey or Greece, goes through Serbia, and then into Hungary has been sealed off.

‘Replacement Migration’, as the United Nation puts it, now comes mainly comes through Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, and Austria. This is the alternative route that’s been established for illegal migrants to gain entry to Western and Northern Europe’s welfare states.

Andrei Sisko, red hat, instructs Slovenian border defenders.

But patriotic Slovenian citizens have come together to stop the relentless flow of illegal migration. The group of concerned citizens has formed a civil defense union to help the Slovenian army capture illegal migrants who’re trying to make their way through the country, Euronews reports.

“I think the only solution here is to send the army to the border, the situation is similar now as if you were opening the gates of a prison and saying we’re letting out all the prisoners, who would stay in there? a single,” said Blaz Zidar, a member of the defense force.

Andrei Sisko, the commander of the citizen’s group, says: “What is the goal? The aim is to educate people and volunteers to defend their country as needed and to help the military and police to control public order. In times of massive migrations from the African and Asian states, especially Muslims, it is important to protect our borders. Because a state that is unable to protect its border is not a sovereign state.”

Recently, during a visit to Slovenia’s southern border with Croatia, Prime Minister Marjan Sarec announced that his country would increase its border protection against illegal migrants.

About 35 additional troops have since been stationed at the border.

Citizens Form ‘Defense Force’ to Stop Illegal Immigration in Slovenia Group of ‘home guards’ patrol border to fight flood of migrants into country

Neon Nettle 23 Sept 2019:

A group of patriotic citizens has formed a border “defense force” to stop the flood of illegal immigration in their home country of Slovenia. Citizens decided to take matters into their own hands in the small central European state and formed the civil “home guards” to stop illegal migrants entering their country from Croatia.

The Balkan Route is used by migrants heading from the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa on their way to open borders Germany, and they illegally enter Slovenia via Croatia after passing through Greece and Turkey.

READ MORE...

John Mearsheimer, The Roots of Liberal Hegemony, Yale University speech, published 22 Nov 2017.

       

(17:54): I just want to be clear, that if we’re going to [be talking about] liberalism, we’re talking about at home, not liberalism abroad; and with regard to nationalism, I’m not making the argument that nationalism is this wonderful force all the time.

Okay. Roots of liberal hegemony - the talk tonight. As I said, you’ve got to start with human nature, that was my chapter two. And when you talk about human nature, really what you’re asking is, ‘what are those common traits that all individuals have in common?’

And by the way, this is something that the founding fathers of liberalism paid enormous attention-to.

I believe that if you’re going to think about liberalism and nationalism, you have to wrestle with these questions.

And there are two big questions:

1) The first question is, ‘are men and women social beings above all else or does it make more sense to emphasize their individuality? In other words, are humans fundamentally social animals, who strive hard to carve out room for their individuality, or are they individuals who form social contracts?

That’s question number one.

2) Question number two, second, have our critical faculties developed to the point where we can reach universal consensus, on what defines the good life - can we agree on first principles?

Can we use reason? Are we able to reason our way through collectively and come to meaningful agreement on the big questions about life?

Those are sort of the two big issues on the table when you think about human nature.

Now, my views on this subject are that human beings are primarily social animals. We’re born into societies. We’re born into groups; and we are heavily socialized inside those groups, both by the family and the society around us in a really big way before our individuality gets to assert itself.

I think human beings are very tribal, to put it in simplistic terms from the get go - that’s not to say that you can’t have a lot of individualism but we’re primarily social animals.

Secondly, I think it’s near impossible to reach universal consensus about questions about the good life.

I agree with Mearsheimer that socialization is primary, that we are primarily social animals. That is the human condition, should be considered the preliminary outlook and matter of negotiation - failing that sufficiently, the individual and their truth will not even survive - they become, thereby, a moot point, not even there to argue how facts count.

However, I don’t think the tribal designation is good short hand - that may have been the practical social survival unit historically, but eventually it became too small and the national social scale has become the optimal unit of survival for various practical reasons.

But coming back to the second question, of whether common grounds and recognition of the shared good between people can be established, Mearsheimer frames it wrong in the sense of looking for any sort of elaborate, universal agreement between nations.

The goal, rather, should be more modest, namely of coordination, enough recognition of common interests, self and other national interests to be able to function non conflictually.

Coordination is geared toward facilitating groups functioning in their own interests with minimal conflict as opposed to trying to achieve thorough cooperation in details that do not bear on capacity for coordination or interfere with the common good.

I do need to call your attention to the fact that there is a constellation of right wingers out there who will seize upon ANYTHING, often superficial matters, in order to distract from what I have to say (which is a coherent and complete enough platform in advocacy of European peoples; I can defend and explain anything that I say).

These people are usually antagonistic to me and the ideas that I put forth because they are committed to Christianity, to Hitler, or to the inclusion of Jews in our advocacy group..and sometimes it is reactionary scientism and egotism that has them averse to the integration of ideas which are very necessary to understand for the good of our people.

Let me say briefly, that coordination of human and pervasive ecology is a large concept which I table. Conducted according to White Post Modern understanding, it is grounds that people of any thought and decency should be able to agree upon to facilitate the survival and coordination of our distinct peoples.

However, these right wing commitments, part and parcel of modernity, run rough shod over coordination to an extent that even the most ethnocentric of tradition could never be capable of.

The first project then, getting people, Europeans anyway, especially northern Europeans, perhaps, to appreciate our social nature from the onset is somewhat difficult for the reasons that:

A) They/we are evolved somewhat more individualistically as we were more evolved against the challenges of nature rather than the challenges of other groups forcing us to band together.

B) This has been fetishized in our modernist quest for pure objective warrant and the reward of its scientific/technological yields, its grandiose moral claims beyond utility to relative social group interests, either beyond nature or in laws thereof; also tending to be narcissistically extended beyond the boundaries, discrimination and prerogatives of other groups - modernity runs rough shod over coordination for its failure to recognize differences while traditional ethnocentrism at least recognized the concept of non-natives, outsiders.

C) However, this objectivity has been somewhat spurned on by Christianity, itself introduced by YKW while the purity quest was weaponized further against Whites by YKW - exacerbated Alinsky style, viz. White Americans being instigated to live up to the anti-social (anti White social) Cartesian purity of Lockeatine individual civil rights against “racism” - i.e., prejudiced against the relative group interests of Whites, with boundaries and discrimination thereupon for Whites.

Furthermore, the Abrahamic religions tend to run rough shod over coordination as they insist upon one god, and tend to be narcissistic, disregarding the significance of national differences

D) To make matters worse, whatever socially organizing and qualitative niche advocating correctives to this universalism and individualism that were introduced through (((academia))), tended to be made didactic for Whites by being exaggerated or misrepresented so that Whites would react against the very corrective that they needed for organization and defense of their social systemic homeostasis - this is where we are at now with all this railing against “the left” and “its failure to deal with reality” its “social justice warring” and various other straw man characterizations of THE Leftist, “his call for equality”, “fifty eight genders”, trannies reading to children in libraries and in paradox to the profoundly leftist call for unionization mislabled a call for “liberalism.” This “scourge of ‘identity politics’, when we should all be American.”

There was/is a call for liberalism within the nation, in the sense of doing away with the strict aristocratic class system that England has had since 1066, but the union of England does not mean giving up its borders, it means a union of the English people, whether they had been so called aristocracy or working class.

Bateson calls this “paradigmatic conservatism” - strong borders of the group, but relative freedom of individuality as facilitated by group security. He felt, as I do, that that’s the way it should be but that the reverse is more and more the case - group borders are being forced open to run wild and individualism is getting pegged, put in a straight jacket.

.....

Mearsheimer argues against trying to impose liberal democracy - a post modern turn away from universalism well advised - as it is necessarily a failed foreign policy against staunch nationalism, but he defends “liberal democracy” as a good way of life for The US.

However, he does not observe that The U.S. has failed democratic principle in important ways - notably in the open border/ opening of group boundaries policies in exploit of the “civic nationalist” concept that his YKW people have perpetrated through power niches in cahoots with liberals/right wingers to overturn democratic will (for closed borders) ..open borders and boundaries, weakening The United States nationhood and putting The U.S. effectively, on a trajectory of non-nationhood.

Note Mearsheimer’s use of the pejorative word “purportedly” when discussing nationalist claims to distinguish their people in ways (e.g., important biological differences) requiring a nation-state to protect their differences; i.e., that they are only “purportedly” different from other people in significant ways which require national boundaries/borders to protect them.

Nevertheless, in places, Mearsheimer makes the point, quite eloquently, that people are social, very profoundly social, from the start; thus making nationalism as it protects their sociality something they care about more deeply than liberal democracy. They will defend more ardently the security, social order and stability that provides for general fairness and just recourse against the secondary priorities, bullying ‘prerogatives’ of individual liberal choice over the security of group interests. Noting our deep social nature (including Europeans) from the start is correct, and is the point of correction that Whites need to understand and prioritize as opposed to right wing reaction (itself a species of liberalism) reaction to Jewish didacticism.

READ MORE...

House Oversight Subcommittees hold hearing on ‘Confronting Violent White Supremacy

Related at Majorityrigths:

Prosecutorial Elite Proffering: Well Organized (But Irrational!) White Defense To Tie-In Lone Wolves

Reflecting on his decision to go public with classified information, Snowden says, “The likeliest outcome for me, hands down, was that I’d spend the rest of my life in an orange jumpsuit, but that was a risk that I had to take.” Courtesy of Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden Speaks Out: ‘I Haven’t And I Won’t’ Cooperate With Russia

19 Sept 2019, Dave Davies interviews Edward Snowden for Fresh Air (Audio)

In 2013, Snowden was an IT systems expert working under contract for the National Security Agency when he traveled to Hong Kong to provide three journalists with thousands of top-secret documents about U.S. intelligence agencies’ surveillance of American citizens.

To Snowden, the classified information he shared with the journalists exposed privacy abuses by government intelligence agencies. He saw himself as a whistleblower. But the U.S. government considered him a traitor in violation of the Espionage Act.

After meeting with the journalists, Snowden intended to leave Hong Kong and travel — via Russia — to Ecuador, where he would seek asylum. But when his plane landed at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport, things didn’t go according to plan.

“What I wasn’t expecting was that the United States government itself ... would cancel my passport,” he says.

Archived Author Interview

Edward Snowden Tells NPR: The Executive Branch ‘Sort Of Hacked The Constitution’

Snowden was directed to a room where Russian intelligence agents offered to assist him — in return for access to any secrets he harbored. Snowden says he refused.

“I didn’t cooperate with the Russian intelligence services. I haven’t and I won’t,” he says. “I destroyed my access to the archive. I had no material with me before I left Hong Kong, because I knew I was going to have to go through this complex multi-jurisdictional route.”

Snowden spent 40 days in the Moscow airport, trying to negotiate asylum in various countries. After being denied asylum by 27 nations, he settled in Russia, where he remains today.

“People look at me now and they think I’m this crazy guy, I’m this extremist or whatever. Some people have a misconception that I set out to burn down the NSA,” he says. “But that’s not what this was about. In many ways, 2013 wasn’t about surveillance at all. What it was about was a violation of the Constitution.”

NATIONAL SECURITY

Justice Department Sues Edward Snowden, Seeking Profits From His Book

Snowden’s 2013 revelations led to changes in the laws and standards governing American intelligence agencies and the practices of U.S. technology companies, which now encrypt much of their Web traffic for security. He reflects on his life and his experience in the intelligence community in the memoir Permanent Record.

On Sept. 17, the U.S. Justice Department filed suit to recover all proceeds from the book, alleging that Snowden violated nondisclosure agreements by not letting the government review the manuscript before publication; Snowden’s attorney, Ben Wizner, said in a statement that the book contains no government secrets that have not been previously published by respected news organizations, and that the government’s prepublication review system is under court challenge.

Interview Highlights

On how researching China’s surveillance capabilities for a CIA presentation got him thinking about the potential for domestic surveillance within the U.S.

I’m invited to give a presentation about how China is hacking the United States intelligence services, defense contractors, anything that we have available in the network, which I know a little bit about but not that much about, because they have the person who is supposed to be giving the presentation drop out. So I go looking ... seeing what exactly is it that China is doing? What are their capabilities? Are they hacking? Are they doing domestic surveillance? Are they doing international surveillance? What is occurring?

And I’m just shocked by the extent of their capabilities. I’m appalled by the aggression with which they use them. But also, in a strange way, surprised by the openness with which they use them. They’re not hiding it. They’re just open and out there, saying, “Yeah, we’re doing this. Yeah, we’re hacking you. What are you going to do about it?”

And I think this is a distinction: I think, yes, the NSA is spying — of course they’re spying — but we’re only spying overseas, we’re not spying on our guys at home. We wouldn’t do that. We have firewalls, we have trip wires for people to hit. But surely these are only affecting terrorists, because we’re not like China. But this plants the first seeds of doubt where I see if the capability is there.

Related at Majorityrights:

Trump and his cyber ‘czar’ Giuliani want to outsource US cybersecurity. Can you guess where-to?

READ MORE...

‘Hebrew Israelites’ who taunted Stamford Hill Jews say they will continue aggressive street preaching.

The JC, 18 Sept 2019:

The JC understands police and council officers have met to discuss how to handle any future incidents

Ashan Ban-Yahawadah, the leader of the Hebrew Israelites, preaches in Brixton, south London on Friday
(Photo: YouTube/the Church of Yahawashi144)

The ‘Hebrew Israelites’ who targeted Charedim with antisemitic taunts have threatened to continue their aggressive street preaching – as police mull how to handle any repeat incidents.

Officers were called to Stamford Hill, in east London during Shabbat on September 7 after passers-by reported the group of 20 to 30 men, who branded Jews “Amalekites and Edomites”, devils and “Slavic, German, Yiddish-speaking abominations”.

The group, most of whom are from south London, call themselves alternately the Church of Yahawashi, Hebrew Israelites or the Outlaws of the House of David, and believe they are the real Jews and Ashkenazim are “imposters”.

A local observant Jewish woman, Lily Smythe, later wrote in a Quilliam Perspective blog that she had never “felt so terrified by a group of people”.

The Community Security Trust (CST) accused them of “abusing Judaism and Jewish passers-by”, saying they posed a risk to “public order and very probable incitement to racism”.

A CST spokesman advised members of the Jewish community to avoid engaging in verbal arguments with the group, as “the likeliest outcome will be to further excite the demonstrators”.

No arrests were made at the September 7 demonstration but the JC understands police officers and Hackney Council representatives held a “blue lights meeting” to discuss the prospect of future incidents.

Speaking near their base in Brixton, the leader or ‘captain’ of the group, Ashan Ban-Yahawadah told the JC the “heavenly father” instructed the Hebrew Israelites to go to Stamford Hill, saying they would continue to “go wherever people are”.

Clutching a shofar, Captain Ban-Yahawadah said: “Have we done anything to them? Did we strike any Jew in Stamford Hill? When we went over there to Stamford Hill did we strike any Amalekite?

“We’re not trying to convince anybody. When we teach out there, only a handful of people listen to us. The scripture says even if people don’t listen, we should prophesy into the wind.

“We want the police to get involved because we’re the real policemen. We’re the real law-givers. We’re reading out of the book of the law.

“[God] has made us a prophet unto the nations. That was the first time we went there. But the heavenly father told us to go and prophesy against Stamford Hill.

“I’m sure if they read their Torah properly, it tells you the Jews had dark-skinned complexions… Us going over to Stamford Hill and cursing them out for their wickedness – that’s a small thing. We haven’t even done nothing to them, we’re just telling them they’re wicked and they’re not the real people.”

The Hebrew Israelites in Brixton. ‘Captain’ Ashan Ban-Yahawadah is second from the left (Photo: The JC)

The ideology of the group appears to have its roots in several American groups of ‘Black Hebrew Israelites’, including the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, formerly the Israeli Church of Universal Practical Knowledge, and the One West Camp.

The group refers to both Old and New Testaments to justify the belief that people of West African, Caribbean and Latino descent are the true members of the 12 Tribes of Israel, while their iconography also incorporates Ethiopian and/or Rastafari imagery.

READ MORE...

Image: Eli Christman / CC BY 2.0

Central Bankers’ Desperate Grab for Power

By Ellen Brown for TruthDig.Org, 17 Sept 2019:

Central bankers are out of ammunition. Mark Carney, the soon-to-be-retiring head of the Bank of England, admitted as much in a speech at the annual meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyo., in August. “In the longer-term,” he said, “we need to change the game.” The same point was made by Philipp Hildebrand, former head of the Swiss National Bank, in a recent interview with Bloomberg. “Really, there is little if any ammunition left,” he said. “More of the same in terms of monetary policy is unlikely to be an appropriate response if we get into a recession or sharp downturn.”

“More of the same” means further lowering interest rates, the central bankers’ stock tool for maintaining their targeted inflation rate in a downturn. Bargain-basement interest rates are supposed to stimulate the economy by encouraging borrowers to borrow (since rates are so low) and savers to spend (since they aren’t making any interest on their deposits and may have to pay to store them). At the moment, over $15 trillion in bonds are trading globally at negative interest rates, yet this radical maneuver has not been shown to measurably improve economic performance. In fact, new research shows that negative interest rates from central banks, rather than increasing spending, stopping deflation and stimulating the economy as they were expected to do, may be having the opposite effects. They are being blamed for squeezing banks, punishing savers, keeping dying companies on life support and fueling a potentially unsustainable surge in asset prices.

So what is a central banker to do? Hildebrand’s proposed solution was presented in a paper he wrote with three of his colleagues at BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, where he is now vice chairman. Released in August to coincide with the annual Jackson Hole meeting, the paper was co-authored by Stanley Fischer, former governor of the Bank of Israel and former vice chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve; Jean Boivin, former deputy governor of the Bank of Canada; and BlackRock economist Elga Bartsch. Their proposal calls for “more explicit coordination between central banks and governments when economies are in a recession so that monetary and fiscal policy can better work in synergy.” The goal, according to Hildebrand, is to go “direct with money to consumers and companies in order to enliven consumption,” putting spending money directly into consumers’ pockets.

READ MORE...