Majorityrights News > Category: Anti-racism

ON Bitchute: Dr. Frank Salter: ON THE ETHNIC GENETIC INTERESTS OF EUROPEANS

Bitchute Version

VertigoPolitix, 30 Mar 2020:

Dr. Frank Salter’s immensely vital academic contributions to the genetic understanding of European ethnic groups, their health and welfare, and the need to safeguard these in a largely multicultural Western world, are explored in this video essay…

Source: https://www.amren.com/news/2018/05/et

While the video has been removed from Youtube:

Here it is on Bitchute.

The mainstream media is calling the Ahmaud Arbery story “the shooting of an unarmed black ‘jogger” by two White men, Greg and Travis McMichael. However, White advocates are calling attention to the attire the “jogger” was wearing, including hiking boots; and the distance that he was from his home, calling into question the idea that he was out on a jog. They add further that he aggressed against one of the gun wielding White men - Travis - which could have been perceived as an attempt by Arbery to take the weapon to use it himself in deadly force; and Travis McMichael using deadly force to prevent the weapon being taken is a self defense argument identical to the Ferguson incident.

Citizen’s arrests are apparently legal in Georgia, and one of the White men, Greg McMichael, is a retired DA police officer; thus familiar with the routine of arrests. But regarding the particularity of the event, McMichael later told police he suspected that Arbery was burglarizing houses under construction in the Brunswick neighborhood and added, “And he’s been caught on the camera a bunch before at night. It’s an ongoing thing out here.”

Vincent James adds - What the Media REFUSES to Tell You About This Story - #118 Amhoud Arbery - that “black males commit 90% of the violent interracial crime and yet the media gives that 10% of White on black interracial crime something like 90% of the coverage.” Whatever the exact percentages of crime and coverage may be, there is no doubt that the media gives loud, lavish and frequent coverage to any of the few White on black violent crimes they can find, while it buries and hushes up the torrents of black on White violence. The Newhouse Group, of which the New York Times was a part, along with most major American city newspapers, was infamous for having a policy to not name the race of violent criminals if they were black. There is apparently little change in the bias of mainstream media coverage in the internet age.

The bottom line: If we had our own countries, this would not be happening.

News Jax updated 9 May:

Grand jury review recommended as video emerges of fatal shooting of unarmed black man

2 armed men—one a former district attorney investigator—claimed they were making citizen’s arrest.

BRUNSWICK, Ga. – A Hinesville district attorney on Tuesday recommended that a grand jury review the fatal February shooting death of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, who friends say was killed while jogging in a suburban Brunswick neighborhood.

The recommendation came on the same day that graphic cellphone video purportedly showing the deadly confrontation between Arbery and Travis McMichael, the son of a former district attorney investigator, was posted by a Georgia radio station and circulated widely on social media sites.

“I am of the opinion that the case should be presented to the grand jury of Glynn County for consideration of criminal charges against those involved in the death of Mr. Arbery,” Tom Durden, District Attorney Pro Tempore for the Brunswick Judicial Circuit, wrote in a press release.

Durden, who started investigating the incident on April 13, said he came to the conclusion after careful review of the evidence in conjunction with the Glynn County Police Department, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia.

No one disputes that McMichael, son of Brunswick District Attorney’s Office investigator Greg McMichael, shot and killed Arbery on Feb. 23, but he was not immediately charged because Travis McMichael claimed he was acting within the scope of a citizen’s arrest.

Arbery’s family says deadly force wasn’t necessary and they simply want to know the truth.

RELATED: Fatal shooting of unarmed black man sparks large protest in Brunswick neighborhood

Brunswick radio station WGIG published the “graphic, disturbing” video that reportedly shows the incident on Tuesday afternoon.

“This was given to us by an anonymous source,” the radio station wrote in a post on its website. “We debated whether to put it out, but determined it was in the best interest of the public.”

News4Jax reviewed the 30-second cellphone video before it was removed from the radio station’s website.

(Editor’s Note: News4Jax made the editorial decision not to show the video in its entirety due to the graphic nature of its contents)

The video, which seems to have been recorded by someone driving behind the vehicle, appears to show Arbery running on Satilla Drive towards a white truck that is stopped in the middle of the street.

Travis McMichael, who appears to be standing outside the parked truck, and Arbery then become engaged in a struggle over what looks to be a shotgun.

The gunshots can be heard on the video within a seven-second span. Arbery is seen trying to run away before falling to the ground with bloodstains on his white shirt.

It’s not clear in the video who fired the fatal shots, but the shooter’s father told police that Travis McMichael fired two shots, killing Arbery.

Greg McMichael, who can be seen in the video standing in the back of the truck, called 911 at 1:08 p.m.

Greg McMichael: “I’m out here at Satilla Shores and there’s a black man running down the street.”

911 dispatcher: “I just need to know what he was doing wrong, was he just on the premises and not supposed to be?”

Greg McMichael: “And he’s been caught on the camera a bunch before at night. It’s an ongoing thing out here.”

McMichael later told police he suspected that Arbery was burglarizing houses under construction in the Brunswick neighborhood.

READ MORE...

Elites Union-Busting Plan: “Diversity”

Hence their program to characterize (stereotype) and vilify “The left”, misdefined as necessarily being in international Marxist, anti-ethnonational or Cultural Marxist, anti White terms.

Clinton sell-out, Maxwell’s Judeo-supremacism and the hoarding of sexual resource.

Comparing Income & Sex Redistribution

By Robin Hanson · June 26, 2018:

Disclaimer: This post is on sensitive topics of sex and power. I try to make it clear when I make a claim; beware drawing indirect inferences; I rarely value signal.

As promised in my last post, I now return after a civility pause to the topic of comparing sex and income inequality and redistribution. This post will be unusually long, as I’m trying harder to speak carefully.

If a feature of individuals can be compared across individuals, and ranked, then we can say that some people have more of it than others. We can then talk about how equally or unequally this feature is distributed across a population. Some features are seen as good things, where most people like to have more of it, all else equal. And the values that people place on some good things exhibit diminishing marginal utility (DMU). That is, people put a higher value on getting a bit more of it when they don’t have much, relative to when they have more.

For good things, we usually seek policies (including informal social norms and formal programs by government, charities, and other organizations) that can raise its distribution, all else equal, and get more of it to more people. And for good things with DMU, unequal distributions are regrettable, all else equal, as any one unit is worth more to those who have less. Any policy that changes a distribution is by definition said to “redistribute” that thing. (If you doubt me, consult a dictionary.) A policy that reduces inequality more might be said to do “more” redistribution.

Eddie Murphy has how many children with how many different women?

Of course all else is usually not equal. People vary in their ability to produce things, in the value they place on things, and in how much those people are valued by their society. Both the things that people value, and the arrangements that produce them, tend to be complex, multi-dimensional, and context-dependent. “Income” and “sex” are both labels that point to such complex, multi-dimensional and context-dependent good things. Both are usually produced via unique pairings, sex between a man and a woman, and income between an employer and an employee. The value of these pairings vary greatly across possible pairings, and also with a lot of other context.

Welfare not only provides money, but frees up the precious resource of time, for people like Desmond Hatchet to have 30 children with 11 different women.

For income, centuries of effort has resulted in several simple accounting methods by which we can define each person’s “income”, though we know that these measures miss a lot of what we care about. For example, regions vary in living expenses, people vary in their health-induced medical expenses, some jobs are easier and more enjoyable than others, some people have more expensive tastes than others, some assets are illiquid and unique, and there’s a key difference between what people own and what they consume. All these issues make it hard to say exactly who has more “income”.

This complexity makes it harder to analyze policies that influence income. Even so, when arguing about policy, people often mention income redistribution advantages or disadvantages of policies, such as regarding taxes, schools, medicine, housing, immigration, and much more. (Such policies usually let either side veto each particular employee-employer pairing.) Reducing income inequality is widely seen as a legitimate policy goal, even if people don’t agree on its priority relative to other goals. Income, and our related informal norms and formal policies, have changed greatly over the last few centuries, though less so over the last half century.

On sex, we might in principle compare individual counts of simple sex acts to get a rough indication of sex inequality, though we know that such a measure would miss a lot that matters. But even though sex is complex, hard to specify, and varied, it is also clearly important to many (both male and female). As is income. People often explicitly mention effects on sex when arguing for and against policies in many areas, such as marriage, prostitution, dating, birth control, nudity, pornography, drugs, child care, housing, and recreation. In the last half century, we’ve seen big changes in both informal norms and formal policies related to sex. People seem to be more sensitive today on the topic of policies related to sex, relative to those related to income, perhaps in part due to recent changes being bigger.

In my April 26 post, I noted that recently some people (self-labelled “incels”) have explicitly and publicly sought less sex inequality, a few via violence, and I wondered why they are so few relative to, and overlap so little with, those seeking less income inequality. I mentioned a few specific possible policies, such as cash transfers conditional on individual sex rates, legalized prostitution, and stronger support for monogamy and marriage. (I did not support or oppose any specific policies.)

But these were just examples; the fact that sex is so complex and integrated into so many social practices implies that a great many policy levers must exist. Who has how much sex with who is influenced by what we count as status and beauty, where people live, where and how they meet, how they talk to each other, what they can learn about each other, and especially by where and when they can talk and meet privately.

I’m far from the first person to consider such policies. Historically, societies have passed laws to discourage premarital and extramarital sex, and to limit how many wives or concubines each man could have. Informal gossip and propaganda has tried to lower the sex appeal of rakes, foreigners, and the promiscuous, and to raise that of soldiers. Policies have limited where and when people might meet in privately, such as segregating student dorms by gender, and prohibiting unmarried couples from renting hotel rooms.

READ MORE...

Ignoring the elephant in the room

Priti Patel today signalled a fresh crackdown on illegal migrants crossing the English Channel as she also vowed to tackle ‘vexatious’ asylum claims.

The Home Secretary conceded that there are currently higher numbers of people trying to cross the stretch of water.

But she said she is working to agree a scheme with Paris which would allow Britain to return illegal migrants to France after they have come ashore in the UK or if they are picked up while at sea.

She also vowed to focus Home Office efforts on combatting ‘vexatious methods’ and ‘vexatious claims’ around illegal immigration and asylum.

More…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8270077/Priti-Patel-signals-fresh-crackdown-illegal-migrants-crossing-English-Channel.html

Well, good luck with that. Patel, like every other politician is ignoring the elephant in the room - the UN Refugee Convention 1951 and the 1967 Protocol, to which both Britain and France are signatories. The Convention states…

The principle of non-refoulement [pushbacks] is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return a refugee against his or her will in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom

But France is a safe country so they are not genuine refugees ?

A refugee does not cease to be a refugee simply because they leave one host country to travel to another. A person is a refugee because of the lack of protection by their country of origin.

The Convention also states the basic rights of refugees as going well beyond ‘physical safety’ and include freedom of movement within the state, rights to work, access to housing, education, travel documents and more. The absence of ‘means of subsistence’ is justification for moving on and seeking a ‘decent human life’.

Illegal ?

The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalised for their illegal entry or stay. This recognises that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.

When it comes to refugee status feelings matter. Does the individual feel safe ? This isn’t lost on the likes of Amnesty International and other NGO’s known to tutor would be refugees on the right things to say and how to behave during assessments. Amnesty recorded the words of Josue, a 53 year old from Honduras, on the Mexico - Us border..

I don’t feel safe here. Anything can happen, because I’m Honduran. The police here are very corrupt and they steal the money of lots of people.

The 1951 Convention gives human rights lawyers the upper hand in any court case concerning asylum and refugee status, as in April of last year, when a US federal court issued a preliminary injunction banning the further implementation of Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ aka the ‘Migrant Protection Protocol’.

It’s hard to accept any politician or political party as being serious about ending the ‘refugee’ problem unless they first announce that they are withdrawing the country from the 1951 Convention. The current system only really benefits organized crime - people smugglers and lawyers - and is unfit for purpose. Free of the Convention, countries can decide for themselves whether or not to accept refugees and if they believe an individual or group of people are worthy of refugee status and are willing to provide sanctuary, they can cut out the middle men and go collect; which is something Britain did for the Ugandan Asians and Hong Kong Chinese.

- Report by mancinblack

Smalls was having trouble following social distancing requirements. The powers that be want to promote blacks as the left unionizing heroes. But it’s not ok for you to unionize in your interests, Whitey. In fact, they are watching for where there is too large a majority of Whites, and thus susceptibility of your unionization, collective bargaining power.

Whole Foods, an Amazon subsidiary, tracking “lack of diversity” to head-off susceptibility to unionization

The Verge.com 20 April 2020:

Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, is using a heat map to track stores that may be at risk of unionization, according to a report Business Insider.

The heat map apparently uses more than two dozen different metrics to track which Whole Foods stores may unionize. The heat map focuses on monitoring three main areas: “external risks,” “store risks,” and “team member sentiment,” Business Insider.

Here are some examples of “external risks,” reports Business Insider:

Some of the factors that contribute to external risk scores include local union membership size; distance in miles between the store and the closest union; number of charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board alleging labor-law violations; and a “labor incident tracker,” which logs incidents related to organizing and union activity.

Other external factors include the percentage of families within the store’s zip code that fall below the poverty line and the local unemployment rate.

Here are some examples of “store risks”:

Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a “diversity index” that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers’ compensation claims, according to the documents.

And here are some examples of how “team member sentiment” is tracked:

Amazon has resisted Whole Foods unionization efforts before — in 2018, the company sent a 45-minute anti-union training video to Whole Foods team leaders that was obtained by Gizmodo. “Throughout, the video claims Amazon prefers a ‘direct management’ structure where employees can bring grievances to their bosses individually, rather than union representation,” according to Gizmodo.

Whole Foods used similar language about direct management in a statement to Business Insider, which it also shared with The Verge. “Whole Foods Market recognizes the rights of our Team Members to decide whether union representation is right for them,” Whole Foods said in the statement. “We agree with the overwhelming majority of our Team Members that a direct relationship with Whole Foods Market and its leadership, where Team Members have open lines of communication and every individual is empowered to share feedback directly with their team leaders, is best.”

Amazon has not replied to a request for comment from The Verge.

AMAZON HAS A HISTORY OF AGGRESSIVELY COMBATING UNIONIZATION EFFORTS

Amazon has a history of aggressively combating unionization efforts, and its anti-labor stance has also come to light due to recent organizing efforts by warehouse employees to protest Amazon’s handling of worker safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. In late March, Amazon fired a warehouse worker named Chris Smalls who organized a walkout in New York City, claiming he violated COVID-19 safety instructions after coming into contact with a co-worker who tested positive for the virus.

However, Amazon executives later attacked Smalls on Twitter after Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) criticized the company. Shortly after, notes from an Amazon executive meeting obtained by Vice News revealed a plan to publicly smear the worker in an effort to discredit broader labor movements within Amazon.

Update April 20th, 6:31PM ET: Whole Foods provided the same statement to The Verge that it provided to Business Insider.

Red State 24 April 2020:

It should be noted that left-leaning organizations have made use of the same technology in their organizing efforts, although some predictably differentiate their use of heat maps from what Bezos and Amazon are doing by calling the latter, “surveillance.”

The Black Socialists in America (BSA), for example, have created a “Dual Power Map”, a digital tool originally created to help organisers find and connect with other groups or initiatives building alternative, democratic and anti-capitalist structures or institutions.

Now, at the request of organisers throughout the US, BSA is also using the map to plot where strikes and Covid-related mutual aid efforts have happened, so that people can tap into a wider network of support and coordinate further actions together.

As a small organisation with limited resources and capacity, BSA has been using open, publicly available data collected and aggregated by a range of journalists and grassroots groups to feed into the backend of the Dual Power Map.

“In this particular situation, you’re talking about one thing that’s designed by Leftists for public use and covering efforts that are already out in the open, led by poor and working-class people who want their efforts signal boosted and supported, and another thing that was a secret, private surveillance tool designed by members of the ruling class to stop working-class efforts before they can even begin,” said Z, one of the founders of BSA and its current national coordinator, who has adopted the name to protect their identity.

In the age of COVID-19, where discussion about drone use and public cameras employed to help identify outbreaks has revolved around making sure civil liberties are also being protected, Bezos’ heat map strategy to prevent unionization at Whole Foods could come under scrutiny.

Of course, Smalls being a Negro and his wanting to unionize, either for Negroes or being encouraged to do so in order to have a more diversified working class, now that’s ok and newsworthy. Unionizing for your interests, Whitey, that’s not ok, that’s “racist.”