Majorityrights News > Category: Global Elitism

In addition to Nigerians, now the most dominant nationality in terms of arrivals, Guineans (13,345), Ivoirians (12,396), Gambians (11,929), Malians (10,010) and Senegalese (10,327) were all amongst the top 10 countries of origin of arrivals in Italy in 2016.  Furthermore, “most refugees and migrants in Libya are young single men,” ...and significantly, “many engage in circular or repetitive migrations”—in other words, go around and around, collecting money and welfare handouts from liberal Europeans along the way.

New Observer, “70% of Nonwhite Invaders ‘Not fleeing War,’ UN Admits” 4 July 2017:

At least 70 percent of the nonwhite flood currently invading Europe are not fleeing conflict at all—and those claiming to be Syrians are a tiny minority of the remaining 30 percent, a new report from the United Nations has admitted.

Titled “Mixed Migration Trends in Libya: Changing Dynamics and Protection Challenges,” the new report was prepared by Altai Consulting in partnership with IMPACT Initiatives (IMPACT), for the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in Libya.

According to the politically correct report, “30 percent [of] migrants are fleeing conflict or persecution,  [while] 70 percent of those arriving in Italy are economic migrants with little chance of receiving asylum.”

Most of the invaders massing in Libya come from West African states like Nigeria, Gambia and Guinea.  According the study, the vast majority of invaders are young, single men with little or no education.  About 14 percent are unaccompanied minors, mainly from Eritrea, Gambia and Nigeria.

Based on interviews on the ground, the study found that about half of the invaders had moved to Libya to seek work, but then “decided to move on to Europe.”

Almost all the invaders were suing the “rapidly expanding criminal trafficking networks, both to enter Libya through the porous southern desert border and onward by boat to Europe.”

“The smuggling industry has grown increasingly professional and transnational smuggling organizations further developed,” the report said. “Armed groups play an increasingly dominant role in the smuggling industry.”

The report went on to reveal that many of the invaders “report travelling to Libya for economic reasons,” and, significantly , “many engage in circular or repetitive migrations”—in other words, go around and around, collecting money and welfare handouts from liberal Europeans along the way.

“Nationals of West and Central Africa countries: mainly from Nigeria, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Cameroon, these people report having left largely for economic reasons,” the report continued.

“Nationals of Eastern Africa countries: from Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan. They reported making the journey for a range of reasons including political persecution, conflict, and economic distress in their countries of origin.

“Individuals from other regions: Syrians, Palestinians, Iraqis, Moroccans, Bangladeshis and others. Syrians, Palestinians and Iraqis flee conflict and violence while others are looking for livelihood opportunities.”

Another significant change is the increase in West and Central Africans, who now represent well over half of all arrivals to Europe, the report added.

In addition to Nigerians, now the most dominant nationality in terms of arrivals, Guineans (13,345), Ivoirians (12,396), Gambians (11,929), Malians (10,010) and Senegalese (10,327) were all amongst the top 10 countries of origin of arrivals in Italy in 2016.

Furthermore, “most refugees and migrants in Libya are young single men,” and “families travelling as a unit are rare, except among Syrians and Palestinians.”

TVN24, “Permanent presence of American troops in Poland is our aim”, 5 July 2017:

“Security understood very broadly – military, energy security – will be the most important issue for President Andrzej Duda during his talks with U.S. President Donald Trump,” announced President’s spokesman Krzysztof Łapiński in “Fakty z Zagranicy”, TVN24 BiS. The minister was asked what the President’s plans were for his talks with the American President, what would be the most important issue for him, what he would like to hear from Trump or what kind of deal he would like to do with him.

“We know roughly what topics the talks will touch on. It is no secret that security [will be the key topic], security understood very broadly,” replied Łapiński. “On the one hand, military security, the presence of American troops in Poland, NATO, and on the other hand, energy security,” he explained.

“Security guarantees” “So, as of today, American soldiers are stationed [in Poland], and we are hoping that their presence will be permanent. It is important that these soldiers – whether they will be rotated once a year or once every two years, or three, this is less important. What is important is that American troops will be present in Poland, because this constitutes a security guarantee,” added Łapiński.

Asked how long the two Presidents’ tête-à-tête would be, he answered that it was expected to last about 25 minutes. Trump and Russia (http://www.tvn24.pl)

On Tuesday, in an interview for the wyborcza.pl website, Łapiński was asked if President Andrzej Duda hoped Trump would confirm the U.S. commitment to NATO during his visit to Poland. “Every day we see that President Trump and the United States confirm their commitment to the alliance, because American soldiers, who came here, are still stationed on the Polish soil. President Trump has never issued any signal or indication to justify any doubts, he never said that the presence of American soldiers in Poland was a bad idea,” the minister said.

The President on Trump’s visit: it cannot be ruled out that it will have historic significance

Asked whether the President expected Trump to announce permanent, rather than merely rotating presence of U.S. troops in Poland, he replied: “This is our aim. Whether such a declaration will be made now or at some other point is a question we should ask President Trump. The minister was also asked about charges made against Trump, concerning his alleged pro-Russian stance. Łapiński recalled the fact that one of Trump’s advisers, who had concealed his contacts with Russia, was dismissed. “President Trump himself, since he took office, has not given any indications that he was contemplating a deal with Russia over our heads,” stressed Łapiński. Źródło: tvn24.pl, wyborcza.pl/ tłumaczenie Intertext.com.pl (http://www.tvn24.pl)

Could have historic significance and impact on Poland indeed.

....as imposition of foreigners would: black, well financed and militarily equipped.

RHF Solicitors’ Festenstein advising Tommy Robinson.

Diversity Macht Frei, Tommy Robinson meets 12 Jews to beg for kosher certification, gets 400 quid”, 5 July 2017:

Tommy Robinson meets 12 Jews to beg for kosher certification. His employer (Ezra Levant) is Jewish. The lawyer (Robert Festenstein) he talks to in the video he makes is Jewish. He goes to Israel and proclaims himself a “Zionist”. And what does he get for all this effort? 400 quid, a denunciation from the Board of Deputies and every other mainstream Jewish organisation, repudiation by the Jewish lawyer he spoke to and an article in the Jewish Chronicle warning Jews not to associate with him.

Will the poor deluded Gentile fools in the Counterjewhad movement ever wake up and acknowledge the role Jews are playing in facilitating the islamisation of Europe, or indeed their role (link) as collaborators of Muslims throughout history, including in the creation of Islam itself?

The JC, “Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson holds secret meeting with Manchester Jews”, 4 July 2017:

JLM members had been left “outraged” after learning of the event.

Members of Manchester’s Jewish community held a secret meeting with Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the far-right English Defence League.

The controversial meeting, which took place in Prestwich last week, was billed as a charity fundraiser, but also saw Mr Robinson deliver a speech outlining his extreme views on Islam.

The JC spoke to one community member who confirmed her friends had organised the session, but said she would “take legal action” if her own name was linked to the event.

Another source confirmed the meeting with Mr Robinson, who is a former British National Party member, went on until “the early hours” of last Thursday morning. Around a dozen people attended.

Invitations to attend were extended to other community groups including the North West Friends of Israel – but its spokesman Anthony Dennison said the group had declined the invitation.

Mr Dennison said: “We find some of Tommy Robinson’s opinions abhorrent. Unfortunately in our community there are a small number of people who are attracted his policies.

“This is unacceptable, and something North West Friends of Israel will never be associated with.”

       

READ MORE...

On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction - when Jewish victimology turns attention to Jews as the victimizers, Jewish exceptionalism is invoked as “Neo” - “As long as I can remember I’ve been a ‘Neo’-Something: A Neo-Marxist, a Neo-Trotskyist, a Neo-Liberal, a Neo-Conservative and in religion, always, Neo-Orthodox, even while I was a Neo-Trotskyist and a Neo-Marxist….I’m going to end up a Neo, just Neo, that’s all.”

Intersectionality: Jewish ordering and exceptionalism in victimology - the “Neo-exceptions” of victimology in the age of treason:

Tanstaafl usually provides incisive insight into Jewish machinations. As he does here in his observation of “intersectionality”, recognizing that to be the point at which Jewish victimology turns attention back to them as the victimizers - which then requires their interests to propose their exceptionalism to the rule - a rule which might be wiggled-out-of as they don themselves “neo” this or that.

Tan’s incisiveness can, however, cut off important “ambiguities” - “ambiguities” that provide means for learning, creativity and agency in the realm of praxis - Tan accuses me of “jargon” for this word, which outlines the interactivity of the social world and its impossibility to predict 1000% for the human capacity for reflexive agency in responses; e.g., I was surprised by Tan when he wanted me to clearly understand that he had “no problem with Hitler.” I expected him to change that, to observe problems, at least some problems with Hitler’s worldview after a reading on his former network of the chapter in Table-Talk, viz., where Hitler discusses his opinion of Ukrainians, the subservient role he saw for those not killed in resistance to his aspiration for aggrandizement of their land. Tan had, after all, objected to Carolyn’s insulting support of Hitler’s disparagement.

Typically in this post also then, we should look-out for some blind spots in Tan’s analysis for his tacit identification with a right-wing perspective, particularly Nazi apologetics.

The wish to vindicate Hitler can make for an over-focus, even if slightly, on Jews as the problem. If Jews were THAT much of the problem, virtually the only problem, then Hitler is apparently, largely vindicated for his “minor indiscretions”. It is not that there should not be strong focus on on the J.Q. But it becomes an “over-focus” when in that incisive focus it parses-out and does not afford discussion of our part, our agency - where any sort of ambiguity is not allowed-for as it does not follow the “logic” of the J.Q. (us or them) - as was the case where Tan’s logic accused someone like me of trying to distract, minimize or malign those who focus on the J.Q. Whereas I am, in fact, merely calling for the need to also examine the part some of our people play (as if we don’t know that Jews like Alana Mercer try to focus singularly on that side of the equation) in our situation, with Jews and otherwise.

When Tan seeks to vindicate Hitler and unburden guilt and agency among his community of sympathizers - by suggesting rather that I am minimizing the J.Q., the singularly paramount issue, a life and death struggle against Jewish interests, as he expresses it - Tan is pushing Whites in the direction of repeating the same mistake, of headlong and disastrous reaction for wont of sufficiently deep and broad epistemic preparation - a necessary grounding especially in the praxis of European ethno-national coordination (which the motive of Hitler vindication precludes). 

Furthermore, by not allowing for the “ambiguity” of praxis he performs an additional disservice by going along with a Jewish default on left and right - i.e., where they can’t get you to cop to being a right winger or an alt-righter, they want you to say, as Tan does, “left and right is not a useful distinction.” Tan adds cleverly, I am a “White winger.”

While he has criticized Lawrence Auster for making liberalism the problem and not Jews, his overly precise focus has bi-passed the fact that liberalism is the problem in the sense that liberalism unfolds characteristically, in reality, as license against group classificatory interests - a consequent in reality especially given the manicheanism of Jewish interests which exaggerate and instigate that liberal prerogative indeed; though liberalism as it follows consequently of insufficient account to our interests is still the manifest problem, even if Auster complains about it, even if instigated by Auster’s fellow YKW: And particularly if liberalism is hidden beneath titular conservatism, as in neo-conservatism or paleoconservatism, or the mistakenly presumed conservatism of Christianity - as any sort of conservatism that they propose will be under their Noahide control; thus not conservative of our sovereign classificatory interests.

Worse, Tan says that Gottfried wants to blame liberalism as well - and so he does, but even more so does Gottfried want to blame and vilify “The Left” - the unionized accountability to social classification - and to position White identity against it - and has, in the form of the Alternative-Right - everybody is blaming “the left” as a result of the language game Gottfried set in motion. And while it is not always correct to play “opposite day”, in this case, it is - we should be asking why Gottfried et al. want us to do that? What is wrong about a White Right - Alt-Right or otherwise? Even more significantly, what is correct about a White Left perspective such that Gottfried et al. do not want us to identify with it?

I do believe that Tan’s blind spots stem from his starting point in defense of his partial German heritage, partly from his STEM-nerd background as well, which has been overly-reinforced against the helpful ambiguities of praxis by right-wing reactionary communities in The US. Thus, he will gain dubious support, for example by fellow Hitler apologist Wolf Wall Street - who will call Tan “the greatest epistemologist in White Nationalism”. When in fact, epistemology is one of Tanstaafl’s blind spots and weak points.

That doesn’t mean that most of what Tan has to say isn’t good - it is. His amplification of the matter of crypsis is an important contribution. But incisive, good and significant as his citing “anti-racism as a Jewish construct” is, it hardly renders insignificant my observation that “anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and killing people.” His statement can be seen as a focus on the major pathogen afflicting European peoples, while my statement focuses on the fundamental element of our systemic immuno-deficiency.

Alt-Right publisher Daniel Friberg from a promotional speech for right-wing 2015

Acrimony on the Alt-Right/New Right, etc. Right: predictably, the inherent instability of The Right emerges. For those who like soap operas, the right is perhaps good for that. But their instability rather highlights the preferability of our platform for organizing nationalists in two way accountability to our interests (to us and from us); against foreign antagonists, whether elite or rank and file; and against traitors among our own, whether elite, or rank and file.

There isn’t a lot of consensus among the right - their primary orientation, against “The Left” and “equality”, was given to them by brackets (viz. Gottfried 2008), adopted then and only became the “common sense enemy” by consensus since the YKW allowed them to do that. Brackets, those in service of brackets, and those willing to sell our people-out for personal gain or sheer ideology are rife in all camps of the right.

Alt-Right, 16 June 2017:

“GREG JOHNSON TURNS DOWN DANIEL FRIBERG’S CORDIAL OFFER TO HAVE A COFFEE AT STARBUCKS”

In the latest bit of juicy infighting here in the Alt-Right, Daniel Friberg, the head honcho of intellectual (but fashy) book publisher Arktos has been defriended on Facebook by Greg Johnson, the mysterious “voice without a face” who runs the fashy (but intellectual) Counter-Currents webzine and book publisher.

The defriending follows weeks of behind-the-scenes bickering and accusations that Johnson had been bad-mouthing Friberg behind his back.

In an attempt to clear the air, Friberg who lives in Budapest, Hungary, heard that Johnson was in town on a low-profile speaking tour, and cordially invited him to have a face-to-face meeting, posting the following message on Facebook:

  Hey Greg Johnson, you have been attacking my character publicly and behind my back for close to a year now. Considering we’re neighbors here in Budapest, how about I buy you a latte at Starbucks; you can say all these things to my face. What do you think?” - Daniel Friberg

Alt-Right: “The Attacks on Arktos,” 17 June, 2017:

               

Alt-Right and Zero-Hedge are reporting this evacuation as having been allowed by The US Military. ZOG being what it is, it is not inconceivable that they would allow them to escape and leave them well equipped.

However, given that Alt-Right and Zero-Hedge are effectively organs of Russian Active Measures at this point, neither can we simply take their word for it as if presenting the whole truth and nothing but…  as if The Russian Federation’s hands are clean in this.

Reports from a year ago highlighted the accusation that Isil was allowed to leave from Mosul unmolested to go to Syria for another stab at another phase of “Clean Break” implementation - against al-Assad in that case.

They cite the “anti-Russian newspaper, The Guardian”:

“An anonymous source claiming to a Russian newspaper something as conspiratorial as the U.S. directly aiding ISIS militants may seem a dubious, but since the offensive was launched on Monday of this week, this has been the reality on the ground.”

“According to Army Lieutenant General Talib Shaghati, as reported by anti-Russian newspaper, the Guardian, ISIS militants are already fleeing Mosul to Syria. This was further confirmed by the Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, who said that if ISIS were forced out of Mosul, they would likely go on to Syria.”

A relatively new site called The Old Continent: Your Eye on Europe might be of some limited utility to ethnonationalism, but requires significant caveat.

Its four listed “authors”, Timon Dias, Vincent van den Born, Frank Kasteel and Benjamin de Wolf all seem to be coming from some sort of military / policing background - and thus given to a platform that aspires to an objective presentation of criminality and its sources antagonistic to, where not outrightly designated the enemy of European civic union.

The site is performing a service in reporting on migrant rape crimes, a type of crime very very important to us and under-reported by the media to date; however, their purported objectivity fails to conceal a pandering to a prejudicial social classification that nevertheless remains salient despite the objectivist prejudice against discriminatory social classification - i.e. the classification female remains, irrespective of the prejudice against social classifications - in fact, emerges to impose itself as a category undeniably. And through the disingenuous objectivist premise, males, any males who are most “objectively” manly, are suitable to look after the interests of European union females:

Case in point - of the posts that Timon Dias has recently put up at the time of this writing, two of them are lauding the virtue and strength of black boxing champions, here and here, one post is some voodoo about a cloud that formed in the sky “miraculously” in the shape of Great Britain - “forming a sign from God for Brexit,” and finally he put up a story about a police car having been burned in Amsterdam by migrants. So, we may guess that Dias is black, part black, perhaps otherwise colored, but at least “philo-black”, i.e., not having European people’s subjective and relative interests as empirically grounded systemic wholes, close to heart.

The other writers seem to be more coherently focused on reporting migrant crime in Europe, particularly as it comes by way of Islam. In pursuing these crime stories as an objective matter, emphasizing previously under-reported incidents of migrant rape, they can supply facts that counter the heretofore mainstream media’s liberal prejudices against ethno-nationalism. Though “Old Continent” is the same as the legacy media in that it purports to be objective, it differs in its undeclared bias in this way of having a prejudicial eye on immigrant crime and particularly Islamic sourcing of that criminal behavior. Whereas the heretofore mainstream media has had a prejudicial eye against conservative reaction to liberal causes, such as problems perpetrated through immigration and Muslim people. This liberal prejudice and de-emphasis on the crimes aided and abetted by liberalism has left us acutely susceptible.

Thus, the site can be helpful to us for this “objective” angle in a few different ways. Firstly by directly providing us with factual events to help supply and support our own arguments and secondly their “objectivity” can help us indirectly to put together our arguments for ethnonationalism as a means of systemic accountability and protection - indirectly, for example, through their “objective” reporting on sources of “anti-Semitism” they can inadvertently call attention to Jewish culpability as Muslim “anti-Semitism” is “objectively” aired. That helps us, of course, because Jewish prejudice and culpability has been something that you cannot talk about in mainstream media as it has been under their sway, but the facts get out through a back door of “objectivity”, despite that, albeit indirectly.

Nevertheless, while the site is helpful to us in providing factual episodes to supply argument against liberal and Jewish media bias, it remains incumbent upon the wise, upon the ethnonationalist, to put together an assessment of patterns from these factual reports, to overcome the pseudo-objectivity that Jews, right-wingers and liberals have enforced upon us, and to warrant necessary prejudicial, discriminatory social classification, to marshal these patterns in our relative interests by contrast to show the way to our salvation - warrant that ethno-national activists can take up in the cause of its implementation.

Thus, where I have not published information from enemy sources or sites with platforms markedly different form ours for the fact that they didactically reveal their prejudices, then I have done so because they are presenting information that is basically factual enough such that much spin cannot be applied to mislead our audience. This would be the case, for example, when I publish material, e.g., from NPR, Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post   ..and where I reluctantly publish material from Russian Active Measures organs, RT and Sputnik.

Thus, I issue the caveat about this site, The Old Continent: Your Eye on Europe, that I cannot vouch that they are operating fundamentally in ethnonational interests, they seem rather to be operating as civic European unionists at best. At worst, and this is likely, they are of the counter-Jihadist mold. In fact, not only are they not likely to ask the “J.Q.”, their kosherness is evident in their focus on “extreme” Islam, their pro-Geert Wilders articles, e.g., here and here (as opposed to our stance on Wilders); the site’s apparent institutional sympathy, technical and informational backing, along with its verbal i.q. are still more kosher indication.

With that caveat, and given that Majority Rights will run information coming through sites with platforms a bit off, or even from opposing platforms, we might avail ourselves of facts that help our cause, where they supply them. Let’s try this story for starters…

...with one more preliminary remark: note the glib and inappropriate caption to the inappropriate image placed with the article - does that reflect subjective and heartfelt relative concern?

A picture of a blatantly unrelated Swedish police car. But man, aren’t they sweet

The Old Continent, Swedish migrant gang-rape: Court can’t establish which suspect did what. So they all walk free, avoiding deportation”, 15 June 2017:

On October 17, 2015, a woman in the Swedish town of Ludvika was raped outside of a restaurant in the center of town. The two men suspected of the crime were arrested on the 22nd of January 2016, followed a month later by a third man, suspected of aiding and abetting. All three of them were accused in court of rape. One of them confessed he was at the scene with the woman, but claimed that the other two were the ones to rape her.

They, in turn, said they were nowhere near the incident and didn’t even know anything had happened.

The Falu District Court, however, found the woman’s story to be very credible. Besides that, cigaret butts had been found on the site, which, according to the police, indicated hat the men had been present. The court, therefore, concluded that one of the men raped the woman, the other held her down and the third stood watch, or at the very least did nothing to prevent the crime. Consequently, all three of them would be sentenced for conspiring to jointly rape the woman. They received four years in prison, after which they were to be deported. They would also have to pay damages of 166.860 SEK (around €17.000) to the woman.

Prosecutor Sanna Gens chose to appeal the decision, seeking higher sentences. This backfired, when on appeal the defendants were acquitted entirely.

Although Court of Appeal agreed that the woman was forced into “sexual acts comparable to intercourse” and that the three men were on the scene with the woman, it did not follow District Court in concluding that this made them guilty of rape.

The case against the men was based heavily on the testimony of the victim. The Court of Appeal found that some elements of her story “appeared to be unclear and to some extent inconsistent with the other investigation.”

Because it is unclear exactly which suspect did what, reasoned the Court of Appeal, none of the men ought to have been convicted and all three of them “should therefore have been acquitted of all charges” as the Court deliberated. So out went the four-year prison sentences and the deportation order.

One of the men, a 25-year-old living in Ludvika, even received 140.000 SEK (around €14.000) compensation for time spent in prison, while another claimed compensation for his ‘suffering’ at the hands of the Attorney General, as well as loss of earnings to the amount of 37.600 SEK (slightly over €3850). This has been rejected, however, on the grounds that he was evidently present at the crime scene.