[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
BRUSSELS — With Europe’s refugee crisis escalating, European leaders on Tuesday approved a plan to spread asylum seekers across the continent over the objection of Central European nations.
The plan to distribute 120,000 migrants across Europe is a first step toward easing the plight of the men, women and children who have been shunted from one European nation to another in recent weeks, a grim procession of human need in one of the world’s richest regions.
But the decision to override the dissenters means the European Union will be sending thousands of people to nations that do not want them, raising questions about both the future of the 28-nation bloc and the well-being of the asylum seekers consigned to those countries. Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia voted against the measure, a rare note of discord for a body that usually operates by consensus on key matters of national sovereignty. Finland abstained.
For all the controversy, the plan would find homes for just 20 days’ worth of new arrivals to Europe, a measure of the scale of the crisis and the baby steps the continent has taken to address it. E.U. leaders will meet in Brussels on Wednesday to discuss broader measures to stem the flow, including bolstering the region’s border controls and stepping up support for the overburdened refugee camps along Syria’s borders.
But after Tuesday’s bitter vote, it was unclear how much common ground remained among leaders.
“Some people will say today that Europe is divided because the decision was not taken by consensus,” said Jean Asselborn, the foreign minister of Luxembourg. “If we had not done this, Europe would have been even more divided and its credibility would have been even more undermined.”
Wealthy nations such as Germany have faced tens of thousands of asylum seekers arriving every week. Leaders there have welcomed Syrians fleeing their war-ravaged country, but have also said they cannot shoulder the entire burden on their own.
“We are doing this out of solidarity and responsibility, but also out of our own interest,” German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said after the meeting. He said the agreement would “prevent more people who are currently in Greece from coming to Germany.” The country expects up to 1 million asylum seekers this year alone.
A first step
Proponents of the plan acknowledged Tuesday that it was just a first step to address the much bigger crisis. According to the U.N. refugee agency, more than 477,000 people have arrived in Europe so far this year via often-dangerous sea crossings, and 6,000 now land on Europe’s shores every day —up sharply even from August, when the figure stood around 4,200 a day.
Germany’s national railway company announced Tuesday that it was suspending rail service to Austria because its trains have been overwhelmed with refugees. It was the latest example of national infrastructure apparently unable to meet the challenge.
Central European leaders condemned the vote, warning that Europe would suffer as a result of the plan to force them to accept asylum seekers.
Breaking down Europe’s migrant crisis
A look at the numbers behind the stream of refugees flowing into Europe as political leaders struggle to ease the burden.
“Very soon we will see that the emperor has no clothes,” Czech Interior Minister Milan Chovanec said on Twitter. “Common sense lost today.”
The numbers will be drawn from Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans coming ashore in Greece and Italy. Germany, France and Spain will take the most. Of the 120,000 spots approved on Tuesday, only 66,000 were immediately assigned to specific countries, with the rest to be assigned later. An additional 40,000 slots were agreed to earlier in the summer.
The final agreement did not include an earlier proposal to penalize countries that did not take in asylum seekers, so it was not immediately clear how the E.U. would deal with nations that refuse to comply with the plan.
At least one country, Slovakia, said after the decision that it would not take in any of the migrants.
“As long as I am prime minister, mandatory quotas will not be implemented on Slovak territory,” Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico told his parliament’s E.U. affairs committee.
Almost 1,300 people will be sent to Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orban has crusaded against the mostly Muslim asylum seekers, saying they are on a campaign to de-Christianize Europe. He has built a 109-mile razor-tipped fence to keep them away from his country’s frontier with Serbia and in recent days has started to expand this barrier to the borders with Romania and Croatia.
Despite Hungary’s opposition to the asylum seekers, a government spokesman, Zoltan Kovacs, said Tuesday that his country would abide by the plan.
“This is a compulsory decision, and we are going to respect it,” said Kovacs. He said Hungary’s leaders looked forward to discussing the “real causes” of the crisis on Wednesday, adding that solutions include reestablishing border controls and improving the refugee camps closer to Syria.
Refugee preferences
Under the distribution effort, each nation would continue to make its own decisions about whether to grant asylum to individual applicants. Hungary, which grants just a tiny fraction of asylum requests, could continue to be far harsher than Germany, which is relatively generous, particularly to Syrians.
There are few guarantees that asylum seekers would actually stay in the country to which they’re assigned, especially given the lack of border controls between most E.U. nations. Migrants would risk losing benefits if they left one country for another, but, for example, few may want to stay in Poland, next door to Germany’s high wages.
Nor was it clear how E.U. policymakers would take into account the refugees’ preferences. Some countries offer far more generous benefits than others. Many refugees also want to be reunited with family members who already live in Europe.
“They say when you are in Vienna, you can go anywhere,” said Wassim, 28, from Aleppo, Syria, who made it through a bustling border crossing at Nickelsdorf on the Austria-Hungary frontier. He hoped to travel quickly onward to the Netherlands. He gave only his first name out of fear of possible reprisals against relatives in Syria.
Ahead of the E.U. decision, the U.N. refugee agency had pushed hard for action, saying that further delays would create an even more dangerous situation for the streams of people fleeing the Syrian conflict. More than 4 million Syrians have already moved to the neighboring countries of Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.
“It’s very, very clear that there is a need for a united common response from European countries,” said Adrian Edwards, a spokesman for the U.N. refugee agency.
Despite Europe’s divisions, some refugee advocates said policymakers seem to be slowly coming to terms with the crisis.
“What is widely acknowledged now is that the conditions in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan are going to become untenable for a large number of people,” said Madeline Garlick, a guest researcher at the Center for Migration Law at Radboud University in the Netherlands. “We are further than we were some time ago.”
Poznan (Poland) stadium: UEFA announced 1Euro of each ticket goes to #refugees #nrx THIS is white identity on display
While most of the clubs across Europe are showing their support towards the refugees, Polish football club Lech Poznan is completely against the cause, The Guardian reported. The supporters carried out a planned boycott during the Europa League match against Portuguese club Belenenses, as they were against UEFA’s decision to donate a euro from every ticket sold to the refugee cause.
The Inea Stadium which had an average attendance of 20,000 people last season, saw a small crowd of 3,000 supporters on the day. The match ended in a tie, with both teams finishing goalless.
The fans were clearly against the idea of refugees moving to Poland and put up a banner which read “Stop Islamization” over one of the stadium entrances. This though was not the first time that the team’s supporters committed such an act. On a previous occasion, the team hung a banner that read “This is obvious and simple for us, we do not want refugees in Poland”.
While Poznan was the only club to participate in a boycott, cases of the anti-refugee movement have also been reported in Olympique Lyonnais from Ligue 1 and Maccabi Tel Aviv. The Bundesliga and the Premier League teams though do not share this sentiment and have shown their support towards refugees on several occasions.
Lech Poznan display their hostility towards refugees in Poland (Image source: 101GreatGoals)
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 20 September 2015 20:21.
To draw the lines of friends and enemies properly this time and then to find the martial spirit which knows no compassion for an enemy that will not comply with the requirements of our existence and well being.
To lose compassion, to lose anti-racism, which is anti - viz. against - social classification (and group discrimination accordingly), to find the will to “other” even their fairly benign individuals, classifying them as being of the mortal group pattern and finding the will to smash them, as need be, on our behalf, anything to drive them away from any imposition upon us - but most of all, losing compassion for those who would bring them upon us.
On African population explosion,
Steve Sailer, September 19, 2015
Above is a graph I put together from their new data that explains much about the “Migrant Crisis” of 2015.
As you can see, way back in 1950, the population of the Middle East was only 18% as great as the population of Europe, while Sub-Saharan Africa was only 33% as large. Even in 2000, the Middle East had only 49% of the population of Europe, while Africa had almost caught up to Europe with 88% of its population.
But from 2000 to 2015, the Middle East added 124 million people, making it now 65% as populous as Europe.
In this century alone, Sub-Saharan Africa has added 320 million people, making it 130% as populated as Europe.
Some of this information about the past is new. For example, the U.N.’s estimate of the population of the continent of Africa back in 2010 has grown by 13 million people, or over 1% between the 2012 Revision and the 2015 Revision. When it comes to population, the past just isn’t what it used to be.
But what about the future?
As a general pattern, the U.N. has found, the completeness of the counts tends to be worse in the fastest growing countries. Thus, the harder the U.N. has looked at Africa in this decade, the more people and more new babies it keeps uncovering.
It turns out that while the total fertility rate in Africa is falling, it’s falling quite a bit more slowly than the U.N. had expected as recently as back in the previous decade. Sub-Saharan Africa simply isn’t behaving like the rest of the world.
The upward adjustment in Africa’s population projections in the 2012 Revision of World Population Prospects came as a shock. But the 2015 Revision forecasts Africa’s population in 2100, about one lifetime from now, to be another 5% higher than the U.N. projected just back in 2012.
Here’s my graph of the 2015 numbers:
Population-1950-2100
Wow.
The U.N. now projects that, despite lower fertility in some Muslim countries such as Iran, the population of the Middle East will surpass that of Europe in 2045 and reach 937 million by 2100.
As for Sub-Saharan Africa, the U.N. foresees the population growing to 3,935,000,000 (3.9 billion and change) by 2100. (The total population of Africa and the Middle East will be 4,872,000,000.)
That’s probably not going to happen due to some combination of (A) intelligent self-restraint, (B) mass migration, and (C) Malthusian Nightmares (war, famine, disease, etc. etc.) keeping the population of Sub-Saharan Africa in 2100 from being more than six times as great as Europe, which would be an 18-fold increase in 150 years.
Keep in mind that there’s not a one to one relationship between population growth and emigration. In general, people try to assess whether the future at home looks brighter than the present. But people in Africa and the Middle East can see their countries’ futures will be more crowded and constrained.
Personally, I hope the reason that this graph doesn’t prove accurate is largely (A) intelligent self-restraint. But at present, white people don’t seem to be making much of an effort to facilitate and encourage reasonable family planning in Africa. Because that would be, you know, racist.
Which is the worst thing in the world, much worse than the U.N.’s population forecast.
Croatia started transporting migrants to Hungary by bus on Friday (18 September) after the country’s prime minister said Croatia cannot cope with the influx and will redirect people towards Hungary and Slovenia instead.
Croatian police put refugees on to more than 10 buses in Beli Manastir, a small town 6 km from the Hungarian border, and some 30 km from the Serbian border.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 18 September 2015 07:31.
Word has it that Juncker is socially conservative and therefore does not relish the migrant crisis; but he is a businessman who is looking after business interests for himself, business constituents and to maintain his position as an EU representative of those interests.
That is why he felt constrained to put across a plan to try to preserve the Schengen zone by diffusing responsibility among its members and (in his theory) that might dilute the impact of the migrants.
An additional aspect to the psychology of his position is that he is from Luxembourg, one of the smallest European nations. One can imagine business persons from small countries finding the delay and tedium of having to go through border controls as they move in and out of a Luxembourg every 15 minutes an insufferable handicap.
Nevertheless, from a WN/ethnonationalist perspective, particularly until such time as the borders of the entire zone are secure from non-European imposition and those who are already here are drastically reduced in number by means of repatriation, the Schengen zone will have to give way to tighter national border controls.
From an ethnonationalist point of view, in any event, there has to be more national accountability to their own and to European people as a whole.
Sep 16 2015: In last week’s State of the Union speech, European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker referred to the Schengen Area – a border-free travel zone made up of 26 European countries – as “a unique symbol of European integration”. After Germany’s recent announcement that it would be “temporarily reintroducing border controls”, some say that unique symbol is in jeopardy.
A look back at the past 30 years since the agreement was signed can help clarify what exactly is at risk.
What is Schengen?
The Schengen Area is made up of 26 European countries that have removed border controls at their shared crossings. The agreement was signed in 1985 by five members of the EU, and came into force 10 years later. Following the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, the Schengen agreement became part of European law. That meant all new EU members had to sign up to it, although Britain and Ireland had already been given the right to opt out. As the map below shows, four non-EU countries – Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein – are also members of the area.
Why are people talking about the end of Schengen?
We are experiencing a global refugee crisis. Around the world, 60 million people have been forced to flee war, violence and human rights abuse – levels not seen since World War II. Hundreds and thousands of those people have attempted the often perilous journey to Europe in search of a better, safer life.
Some of them haven’t made it – while the image of Aylan Kurdi’s lifeless body on a beach in Turkey shocked the world, many more have died trying to get to Europe. According to figures from the International Organization for Migration, 2015 could end up being the deadliest on record.
Of those who do make it over, the majority have been heading to Germany. The country expects to take in 1 million asylum seekers by the end of the year, more than all other EU countries collectively received in 2014. It is in response to these huge numbers that Germany decided to re-impose its internal border controls. The country’s interior minister said the move aimed to “limit the current inflows to Germany and to return to orderly procedures when people enter the country”.
Some have been quick to emphasize the temporary nature of this decision. But with countries such as Austria and the Netherlands now following suit, others think Schengen’s days are numbered.
Has anything like this happened before?
The option for a country to temporarily reinstate border controls was actually built into the original agreement, as the European Commission pointed out last weekend: “The temporary reintroduction of border controls between member states is an exceptional possibility explicitly foreseen in and regulated by the Schengen Borders Code.”
In the past, countries have chosen to exercise that right. For example, in 2006 Germany reinstated border controls when it hosted the FIFA World Cup. France did the same in 2005, following the terrorist attacks in London. In what was perhaps a precursor of the troubles to come, during the post-Arab Spring mass migration of 2011, politicians in France and Italy called for deep reforms to the agreement.
So what’s different this time?
Even in Schengen’s early days, critics pointed to one big flaw: freedom of movement within the Schengen area only works if the common external borders are fortified. With many frontline countries such as Greece already experiencing crises of their own, the task of strengthening those external borders has become even tougher.
The stakes were raised this summer after a heavily armed terrorist suspect was apprehended on board a train travelling between three Schengen countries. The ease with which he had moved around the area prompted some to refer to Europe’s open-border policy as a terrorist’s paradise.
Perhaps more importantly, people’s attitudes within the area are starting to change. This recent crisis is just one in a long line of turbulent events for Europe these past months and years. Whether they are right to do so, some blame the union for these developments. While Schengen and the free movement of people might be at the core of the European project, for some that no longer seems worth fighting for. A poll back in July showed that the majority of western Europeans would like to see Schengen scrapped, and last year former French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for it to be “immediately suspended”.
But with so many people now displaced by conflict and violence, others argue that the European project – which has brought peace to a continent previously locked in war – has never been more important.
As plans to share out asylum seekers more equitably across the European Union make little progress, many will be closely watching the developments for hints of what it means for Schengen.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 17 September 2015 19:52.
When the most prominent publicist and right hand man of the serving government of Hungary uses language such as this, it isn’t time to be discouraged about White Nationalist efforts. It is time to increase initiatives: our voices are being heard. Mainstream politicians have begun speaking in explicit terms of our racial interest:
“The refugee crisis in Hungary and Europe is a racial war intended to annihilate White people.”
Zsolt Bayer, a co-founder of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party, a long-time friend of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the right’s most prominent publicist, sees the current refugee crisis in Hungary and Europe as a racial war intended to annihilate white people. Mr. Bayer shared these thoughts at a rally in Budapest this past Sunday, attended by an estimated 1,500 people, and organized to protest a magazine cover in Hungary, which portrayed Mr. Orbán with a mustache that resembled that of Adolf Hitler. In this paper, I have suggested before that Fidesz and the far right Jobbik party are indistinguishable. Perhaps I was wrong, because based on Mr. Bayer’s speech, Fidesz is now more extreme than the ominous opposition party.
Mr. Bayer’s premise, that dark forces are conspiring against white people throughout the world, is framed in a quote from controversial author, historian and race theorist Noel Ignatiev. Mr. Ignatiev has long seen race as a social construct, something that Mr. Bayer fails to mention to his audience, who he left thinking that the American theorist wants to annihilate white people. Mr. Ignatiev has spoken about wanting to “abolish the privileges of the white race” and added: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin.” Mr. Ignatiev, a long-time Marxist, is essentially suggesting that a type of constructed white identity carries with it automatic privilege, rendering equality between all races impossible. The theorist could have clearly phrased this in a less inflammatory matter, and his theories are Manichean and possibly somewhat outdated in the twenty-first century. But regardless: his overarching message of ingrained, implicit racism is worth considering.
The Fidesz co-founder portrays this Marxist academic as an influential thinker among western policymakers, a mover and a shaker, a man who walks the corridors of power with confidence and ease. This is simply not true, but Mr. Bayer’s audience is left thinking that a madman who wants to commit genocide against white people is a powerful voice in Washington.
“There are all kinds of weapons: traditional, chemical, atomic. And now we see that there are also racial weapons. This is the weapon that they, the invisible hands, employ against Europe and against the white race,” declared Mr. Bayer in Budapest.
The term “invisible hands,” within this context, is coded language, easily deciphered by everyone in that audience and on the Hungarian right as a reference to liberals, left-wingers and Jews. (Mr. Ignatiev is, himself, of Jewish origins.)
“Why has everyone, from everywhere and all at once, decided to start heading towards Europe? Why? Let us declare loudly and level-headedly: this is an artificial, manufactured mass migration. And its goal is the final and irreversible transformation of Europe’s ethnic and religious composition. And for this, they have already produced the necessary ideologies. According to the Harvard professor, the white race must be made to vanish,” said Mr. Bayer. At several times in his speech, the crowd, fired up by the orator, interrupted him.
The other “ideology” that Mr. Bayer dismisses is the fact that Europe’s population is ageing and dwindling, and that immigration is most likely the only way to ensure a large enough active adult population to keep pensions and social services sustainable. Mr. Bayer believes that European corporations want to employ “Syrian masons and Bedouin goat-herders” in their factories, rather than native European youth, because they represent cheap labour.
“Our leaders in Brussels want to sell Europe from over our heads and they want to destroy our Europe…Anyone who dares to oppose this automatically becomes a Nazi,” said Mr. Bayer, explaining to his audience why Orbán is often labeled extremist.
“But I have some bad news for these criminals, namely for the Austrian chancellor, the French foreign minister, the western journalists, who are liars to their very core and, of course, for the good-for-nothing people behind the Magyar Narancs publication: of the 500 million natives of Europe, 450 million do not want to see any more immigrants. The Hungarian prime minister represents their opinion,” declared the Fidesz publicist.
The crowd held up signs that read “Je suis Orbán,” amidst dozens of Hungarian and Szekler flags and the event’s organizers, the Forum for Civic Cooperation (Civil Összefogás Fórum – CÖF), a pseudo-NGO, fully in line with Fidesz party interests, declared that further protests were coming against the “liberal fascists” and those who criticize the prime minister.
