[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[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.
Iran “has opened a new chapter” in its ties with the world, President Hassan Rouhani said, hours after international nuclear sanctions were lifted.
The move came after the international nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, said Iran had complied with a deal designed to prevent it developing nuclear weapons.
Most Western governments hailed the move but Israel accused Tehran of still seeking to build a nuclear bomb.
Four dual US-Iran nationals were released from jail by Iran on Saturday.
They include Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, who was arrested in 2014 and jailed in November for espionage.
Early reports said all four had left the country, however unnamed US officials later said that while “those who wished to depart Iran have left” and that one of the four, Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari, was not on the plane headed for Switzerland.
A fifth American, Matthew Trevithick, was also been released separately.
The US offered clemency to seven Iranians being held in the US for sanctions violations.
Nuclear sanctions have been in place since 2006, on top of other sanctions stretching back decades:
The economic sanctions being lifted now were imposed progressively by the US, EU and UN in response to Iran’s nuclear programme
The EU is lifting restrictions on trade, shipping and insurance in full
The US is suspending, not terminating, its nuclear-related sanctions; crucially, Iran can now reconnect to the global banking system
The UN is lifting sanctions related to defence and nuclear technology sales, as well as an asset freeze on key individuals and companies
Non-nuclear US economic sanctions remain in place, notably the ban on US citizens and companies trading with Iran, and US and EU sanctions on Iranians accused of sponsoring terrorism remain in place
A flurry of Iranian economic activity is anticipated:
Nearly $100bn (£70bn) of Iranian assets are being unlocked
Iran is expected to increase its daily export of 1.1m barrels of crude oil by 500,000 shortly, and a further 500,000 thereafter
Iran is reportedly poised to buy 114 new passenger planes from the Airbus consortium
UN, US and EU sanctions have hit Iran hard for years.
Mr Rouhani said everyone was happy with the deal, apart from those he described as warmongers in the region - Israel and hardliners in the US Congress.
“We Iranians have reached out to the world in a sign of friendliness, and leaving behind the enmities, suspicions and plots, have opened a new chapter in the relations of Iran with the world,” he said in a statement on Sunday morning.
The lifting of sanctions was “a turning point” for Iran’s economy, he added, saying the country needed to be less reliant on oil revenues.
US Secretary of State John Kerry, an architect of the deal, said it had been pursued “with the firm belief that exhausting diplomacy before choosing war is an imperative. And we believe that today marks the benefits of that choice”.
However US Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said the Obama administration had moved to lift economic sanctions “on the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism”.
And Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “Without an appropriate reaction to every violation, Iran will realise it can continue to develop nuclear weapons, destabilise the region and spread terror.”
‘Expectations are high’ - Amir Paivar, BBC Persian business reporter
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says the lifting of sanctions is a victory for the Iranian nation. It is one for him too.
Mr Rouhani had pledged to strike a deal ending the nuclear standoff. He just delivered his biggest promise. This will boost his allies in parliamentary elections next month.
But hardliners will not sit and watch. They call the shots in domestic, security and cultural areas. There is always danger of a backlash unless Mr Rouhani’s faction shares the post-sanctions financial benefits with them.
Expectations are high, and managing them will be a difficult job. The impact of lifting of sanctions in livelihoods of many Iranian will not come overnight. Rouhani now says he will focus on boosting foreign direct investment and Iran’s non-oil exports. Easier said than done.
The prospect of Iran doubling its crude oil exports has contributed to the continuing fall in the oil price. Benchmark Brent crude closed below $29 (£20.3) on Friday. Share prices in Saudi Arabia, the Arab world’s largest stock market, fell more than 6% following the lifting of sanctions.
The IAEA said it had installed a device at the Natanz plant to monitor Iran’s uranium enrichment activities in real time, in order to verify that uranium enrichment levels were kept at up to 3.67% as agreed in the deal with world powers.
As part of the deal, Iran had to drastically reduce its number of centrifuges and dismantle a heavy-water reactor near the town of Arak, both of which could be used in creating nuclear weapons.
Iran has always maintained its nuclear programme is peaceful, but opponents of the deal say it does not do enough to ensure the country cannot develop a nuclear bomb.
This is of course a wonderful development. Despite all the obstacles that were placed in the way, a sane and encouraging outcome has emerged.
As a retrospective look back, I’ll offer you all a set of links to accompany this story:
Those links should cover the highlights on how things ended up like this, and who the key winners and losers have been.
Broadly speaking, the winners have been all oil importers, particularly the United States, the European Union, and certain oil-importing countries in South America and South East Asia.
The losers have been all oil exporters, but especially Saudi Arabia and Russia. Israel also emerges as a loser, having failed to accomplish most of its objectives.
Bielefeld (WB). Bielefeld police do not want to say much about an investigation because it is just underway—it is alleged that a 14-year-old had been kept in a Bielefeld basement, drugged and sexually assaulted by several young men.
According to unconfirmed information from the community of the alleged victim, the events could have played-out in this manner: On 04 January 2016, the girl and young men sat together outdoors in a deprived neighbourhood in Bielefeld. A representative said that several of these young men were 18-year-old-plus Iraqis who came and offered drinks, possibly alcoholic, to the 14-year-old girl. At 18:00, she then followed two or three of the men to a basement room where a mattress had been placed.
Afterward she spent four days in the hospital
A friend is said to have found the 14-year-old later unconscious in the room. The friend alerted the emergency services, who attended to the girl at the scene and brought her to the hospital. The 14-year-old was admitted to the hospital. Indications of sexual assault were assessed. She spent four days in the children’s hospital.
It was also observed under hospital care that the girl’s mental state had a striking parallel to a case incident in Wuppertal on Tuesday. There, at 18:30, a pedestrian discovered a 16-year-old girl unconscious on a playground and alerted an ambulance. According to police, the Wuppertal student was raped and seriously injured. She stated that she had been drugged.
Three male suspects
A spokeswoman for the Bielefeld police said yesterday, one indictment was made among the three male suspects in the case of the 14-year-old girl. His identity has not yet been completely revealed. Whether the charge under laws regarding sexual assault were to be rape or not, the spokeswoman would not confirm. She said, “it is also about protecting victims.”
In the context of the alleged crime yesterday, the perpetrator has been described as Iraqi, in Germany illegally, who had been asked to leave a long time ago. He eluded authorities despite even having-been provided with a ticket to fly back to Iraq.
An actual real rape culture has made itself manifest, and suddenly liberals are nowhere to be found.
It’s almost as though all the liberals who professed their adherence to feminism were only doing so for as long as it was chastising European males. Now that Arab males have appeared and are at least a thousand times more prolific in their offensiveness than European men ever have been, suddenly feminism has been discarded because it clashes with the true agenda of liberals. Liberals are on an agenda which has relatively little to do with advocating justice for women and girls, and in fact everything to do with a demented opposition to ethno-nationalism and ethno-regionalism.
Austrian officials are investigating allegations that four under-age asylum seekers sexually harassed and assaulted three schoolgirls for months, without anybody taking action.
The four boys attended the Schlossstrasse middle school in Salzburg. It was only in the wake of the widely reported New Year sexual assaults in Cologne that one of the victims, aged 14, made a complaint to police.
That resulted in the four youngsters, aged 14, 15 and 16, being suspended. Only one of them had a residence permit.
According to a report in the Kronen Zeitung newspaper, three female students say they were assaulted and groped by the boys for months.
Last Wednesday an attack on one girl was reportedly so severe that it came to the attention of the school headmistress Eva Szalony, who made a complaint to police.
She said the allegations were “a complete shock” and that the school is now investigating why the girls had suffered for so long without reporting the abuse.
She said that the male pupils had all come to Austria as unaccompanied minors from Syria and Afghanistan and she believed them to be happy and grateful for being allowed to live in Austria and attend school, adding that “they were integrating themselves very well”.
Police have now confirmed they are investigating allegations of sexual assault, grievous bodily harm and threats.
The allegations go back to last November, and involve verbal abuse and suggestive comments as well as physical violence in which the girls say they were groped and fondled.
The attacks got more serious as time went by. The 14-year-old said that she was often hit by a 15-year-old from Afghanistan, including an incident where she was hit so badly from behind that she smashed her head onto the desk.
She was attacked again on Wednesday by the same boy, who smashed her against a locker so hard that the police were called. They took the victim and the accused to the station. After hearing of her ordeal, police then expanded the investigation.
Local education officials in Salzburg have said the incidents are being dealt with very seriously and that it will appoint a coordinator to oversee all school-age asylum seekers and their teachers.
Psychologists are now speaking to affected pupils in the school as well as their classmates, and parents have been informed about the situation.
Story courtesy of Central European News
These are the things that liberals don’t think about before they start getting excited about ‘welcoming refugees’. No one should have been surprised by any of this.
The coordinated attacks were not limited to Cologne.
Immigrant men being over-represented in governmental gender policy-making and holding racist views of Swedish women is well-known to DN and other media. But to report on the abuses causes a collision with the newspaper’s political values. After the mass atrocities against German women in Cologne a broad awakening is occurring to the wave of scandals across Europe and in several cases cover-ups have come to the surface.
Abuse of Swedish girls from men of immigrant background - often so-called “refugees” - should have been reported on, inter alia, as having occurred at ‘The We Are Stockholm Festival’ in Stockholm last summer. It was something that DN was tipped-off about, but somehow reporting never happened. Blame the missed responsibility and the “aggravating circumstances” for enabling the abuse.
DN receives daily tips on crimes and abuses in which Swedish women are victims and perpetrators immigrant. Often there are racist motives behind the atrocities. To report on abuses should not involve any consideration for an objective newspaper in the public service. To mention the perpetrators’ ethnicity in similar cases is also relevant because it almost exclusively concerns race and racism in this type of crime.
The result will often instead be a total loss of reporting because one cannot mention the crime and its possible nature without it somehow becoming too obvious and too hard to avoid referring to the offenders’ ethnicity. In several cases, reporters have chosen to call the perpetrators “Swedes”, even in cases where they lacked Swedish citizenship. But as this kind of obscuring or intentional misrepresentation becomes increasingly obvious they often prefer not to report on the events at all.
To dampen the growing confident indignation of Dagens Nyheter, other media outlets now go about trying to minimize the damage by blaming the police for not reporting properly on last summer’s attacks on the We Are Stockholm Festival.
A police chief in Stockholm was forced to recognize how it happened:
- This is a sore point, we sometimes dare not say what it is because we think it plays into the hands of The Swedish Democrats. We must take this under consideration as police said the police chief, Peter Agren.
The politicized news and obscuring of the impact of immigration policy is often described as one of the main causes of the crisis of confidence in old newspaper readership.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 10 January 2016 11:47.
Top Hungarian Economist - Zsolt Bayer - speaks openly about a war on White European people.
Dear Global Power, we know precisely well that you exist, naturally; and that your fundamental goal for everything is the annihilation of all that is still humane, all that has dignity. And you believe that, for now, the European White man still possesses too much of this…and you want to annihilate European White man.
“For me, and for this entire Administration, our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s future is ROCK SOLID, UNWAVERING, ENDURING, and FOREVER!” - Hillary Clinton
No, not a commitment to the 14 Words, but evergreen news of dedication to Israel
On the other hand, they came, they saw and a leader of a regime that helped keep migration and its destruction out of Europe died.
While in Europe. IBID: The reason you are starting with the most organized and richest part - the German speaking Europe..
..is because you also want to prove that—and the Swedes, too, the Scandinavian countries -
- you want to prove that you can do whatever you want.
BB seems rather confident
IBID: So, according to your desires, you can also blow up, break apart, destroy Europe’s most organized, richest countries.
...and in this I completely agree with you all…
This global scum, this global filth, that global mass of trash, they are not even sentient beings, but animals [they lose their human status as moral agents], as you said.
Global mass of trash. Global filth that has, however, been pumped over here with aid of gigantic resources…
And they are doing everything they can to keep this pumping going unimpeded.
Only idiots, only absolute idiots are incapable of comprehending
That for the relatively quick pumping of millions of people across thousands of kilometers….
Outline:
Introduction: Dire predictions
Social conflict
More crime
Reduced welfare
Greater ethnic inequality
Racialized politics
Reduced civil liberties
Benefits? Arguments for open borders
Conclusion: Jeopardy. Will Europe Survive?
Introduction: Dire predictions
My name is Frank Salter. I’m an Australian political ethologist, meaning that includes biological approaches when studying society and politics. I’ve spent much of my career researching at a Max Planck Institute in Germany, as well as teaching there and elsewhere in Europe and the United States. One of my research areas is ethnic solidarity and conflict and how this affects democratic welfare states.
In this talk I discuss the dire predictions that have been made about the massive influx of immigrants and refugees still entering Germany and other European countries from the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Many then fan-out, crossing Europe’s old national borders which are no longer regulated due to the Shengen Agreement. Some believe this could end European civilization, despite the outpouring of goodwill and hospitality shown by millions of Germans and other Europeans. These predictions have not only come from anti-immigrant ideologues but from moderate politicians.
An example is Tony Abbott, until recently Australian prime minister. Speaking in London, Abbott called on Europe to close its borders to avoid a “catastrophic error”. He declared that protecting the borders will “require some force; it will require massive logistics and expense; it will gnaw at our consciences – yet it is the only way to prevent a tide of humanity surging through Europe and quite possibly changing it forever.”
Curiously, neither Abbott nor the other commentators explain why the influx would be so damaging. The same is true of Angela Merkel’s argument for opening the borders. Where was the sober and transparent assessment of costs and benefits?
In this talk I attempt such an assessment, by reviewing research on the way that ethnic diversity tends to increase social conflict and crime, undermine welfare, exacerbate ethnic inequality, racialize politics and erode civil liberties. I then compare these costs with the benefits of mass Third World immigration asserted
by Angela Merkel and her supporters.
Social conflict
Recent tragic events, including the attacks in Paris, make terrorism appear the most obvious and immediate threat. The overwhelming majority of incomers are Muslims. Though most Muslims are not terrorists, many terrorists are Muslims. In general, rising ethnic diversity increases the chance that one minority or another will oppose the government’s foreign policy. Tragedy results if even a small number of disaffected individuals adopt violence.
However, terrorism is not the main harm likely to arise from the present immigration. The main effect will be to fracture the psychological bond of nationality, leaving citizenship a hollowed-out legalism. That is because rising diversity is associated not only with violence such as terrorism and civil war, but with a general loss of social cohesion. But let us begin with violence.
Data from numerous studies show that the more ethnically diverse a society the greater the risk of conflict and, conversely, the more difficult it is to forge unity. Civil conflict is less likely in more homogeneous societies. Academic researchers have attempted to quantify the risk.
In the 1990s a global study by Rudolf Rummel at the University of Hawaii measured how 109 variables contributed to collective violence of the extreme variety – guerrilla and civil war – between 1932 and 1982; that’s a 50 year period. He found that one fifth of the variation in collective violence was caused by just one variable, the number of ethnic groups within the society. Conflict was made more intense when the antagonistic parties had different religions. [ii] That finding is obviously relevant to the present situation where Muslims are flooding into a largely Christian and secular Europe.
A study of contemporary societies by Finnish sociologist Tatu Vanhanen examined ethnic conflict defined more broadly to include discrimination, ethnic parties and interest groups, as well as ethnic violence and civil war. Vanhanen used evolutionary theory to hypothesize that diversity would cause conflict to rise. Among the 176 societies he studied, Vanhanen found that in 2010 two thirds of global variation in ethnic conflict was explained by ethnic diversity.[iii] In other words, much of the difference between united peaceful countries and those riven by ethnic conflict is the latters’ ethnic diversity.
A related effect of diversity is lowered cooperation and “social capital”, the extent to which people support each other. As heterogeneity grows, participation in clubs and volunteer work falls. People become more isolated and less trustful. The effect is strongest in local neighbourhoods where people experience different ethnic groups.[iv] In other words, it is not ignorance or isolation that cause ethnic discord, but contact with other cultures, including foreigners entering a homeland territory in large numbers.
German governments should be aware of the tendency of ethnic diversity to cause social conflict because that tendency has been studied in German research institutions. For example, ethologist Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, a professor at the Max Planck Society, and colleagues such as Johan van der Dennen at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, have for decades studied the effects of cultural mixing on ethnocentrism and xenophobia in mass anonymous societies. Both have warned that large scale mixing of different ethnicities reduces social stability and risks domestic peace.
Some of the research I’ve been discussing was inspired by evolutionary theory. This is an important approach long excluded from the social sciences. Human psychology evolved in the context of ethnically homogeneous groups. From this perspective the diversity now being imposed by modern elites is unnatural on the evolutionary time scale. That unnatural level of diversity is responsible for some of the conflict, according to evolutionary theory. Further confirmation of this evolutionary hypothesis is the finding that genetic diversity, as distinct from cultural diversity, correlates with social conflict. Since ethnic groups are pools of genetic similarity,[v] mixing such pools increases genetic variation within a society and, according to new global research, causes greater social conflict.[vi]
Stronger causes than genetic diversity are cultural, economic and historical factors, which help explain the surge of goodwill that Germans, Swedes and other Europeans showed Syrian refugees in 2015. But these factors can fluctuate greatly in the short term, while it can take many generations for genetic variation to fall.
More crime
Crime is social conflict in which the aggressor breaks the law. The track record of crime committed by non-Western immigrants to Europe is not reassuring.
A disturbing trend in France, which has Europe’s largest Islamic population, is the growth of no-go areas where even police dare not venture except in force. In addition in France and Britain there are occasional riots so violent and extensive that police lose control. These periods of mass conflict amount to uprisings.
The trend is for parallel societies to be established as the immigrant populations from less compatible cultures segregate themselves and new generations come of age. Generous welfare and multiculturalism exacerbate immigrant crime, which often increases in the second generation.
Between 1997 and 2013 large scale organized sexual exploitation of white girls took place in the English town of Rotherham in South Yorkshire, predominantly by Muslim Pakistani men. Up to 1,400 girls as young as 12 years of age were raped and sex-trafficked by multiple men.
Sweden and Denmark also offer a glimpse of what Germany can expect from the intake of unselected immigrants coming from incompatible cultures. In Sweden the majority of those charged with murder, rape and robbery are immigrants, despite immigrants numbering only 16 per cent of the population.[vii]
In Denmark immigrants from several countries commit crimes at a much higher rate than do ethnic Danes. This is especially true of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa.[viii] The greatest frequency of law-breaking was shown by the children of non-Western immigrants. Those aged 15-19 were overrepresented by 93 per cent, those aged 20-29 by 130 percent, and those aged 30-39 were overrepresented by 135 per cent. Ethnic Danes were underrepresented for all these age categories.
For Germany the data are less accessible but an unconfirmed report indicates that in 2011 asylum-seekers committed 3.3 per cent of all crimes, many times their proportion of the German population.[ix] By 2014 that already-high figure had jumped to 7.7 per cent of all crime. In the same period, the number of assaults and shoplifting across Germany more than doubled.
Reduced welfare
Obviously the influx of millions of poor people will strain welfare budgets. Europeans who have paid social security insurance their whole working lives will soon be supporting health, housing, unemployment and age benefits for millions who have never contributed. If the influx is not stopped, this will be the start of an astronomical transfer of wealth, while the system survives.
It might not survive long because most European governments are already heavily in debt and managing heavy welfare expenditures. In 2013, the last year for which data are available, general government gross debt in Austria was 81% of GDP, in Belgium 104%, France 92%, Germany 77%, Italy 128%, Spain 92%, and the United Kingdom 87%.[xi]
In Sweden government debt is only about 39% of GDP but its immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are straining the budget. These immigrants make up about 16% of the population but take as much as 58% of welfare payments, representing a large wealth transfer from ethnic Swedes.[xii] That transfer is a bad investment because about 48% of working-age immigrants are unemployed. Even after 15 years in the country, 40% are not working.
But welfare is still more fragile than these figures indicate.
Research conducted at Germany’s Max Planck Society indicates that ethnic change due to immigration will change taxpayers’ motivation, reducing their willingness to support welfare. Comparison of welfare systems around the world shows that as ethnic diversity rises, welfare tends to decline.[xiii]
Not only welfare declines but any services relying on contributions to public goods. That includes cooperation with police, charities, medical and military authorities.
Foreign aid, which is international welfare, is even more fragile. Foreign aid is strongly and negatively correlated with donor countries’ ethnic diversity.[xiv]
The irony could not be more cruel. By accepting large numbers of people of non-Western cultures, who are seeking to benefit from generous welfare, European countries not only risk losing domestic welfare for natives and immigrants alike, but reducing their foreign aid to immigrants’ homelands. It’s a lose-lose strategy.
Greater ethnic inequality
Ethnic inequality, a major cause of civil conflict, will increase as a result of the present influx. When an ethnic group fails to achieve income equality down the generations, the effect is deeply ingrained resentment and a low threshold for civil unrest. That might be why second generation immigrants often show higher criminality than their parents.
Once again there is no excuse for ignorance because Germany has its own native-born instructor on the causes of ethnic inequality. Thilo Sarrazin was an SPD politician and, until 2010, board member of the Deutschebank, the year he published a book titled Germany abolishes itself: How we risk losing our country.[xv] Sarrazin documented the slow pace of integration of Turkish immigrants into German society and economy, their disproportionate reliance on government welfare and their higher fertility. He found that slow assimilation was caused by the Islamic religion and lower educational outcomes were caused by persistent ethnic tradition.[xvi] When he wrote this, Angela Merkel was already German Chancellor. She condemned Sarrazin and endorsed his removal from the Deutschebank board, an omen of her 2015 radicalism and intolerance.
It is certain that the present influx will escalate ethnic stratification in Germany and in Europe. If this were only due to poor languages skills and low education, the inequality could close within a generation or two (still an appalling assault on the receiving societies). But many of the immigrants come from populations with long records of poor educational and economic performance, likely to result in chronic ethnic stratification reminiscent of despotic empires by importing a new underclass, Germany and Europe are abolishing their egalitarian national societies.
Racialized politics
An open door policy is advocated by self-proclaimed anti-racists such as Angela Merkel and her allies on the far left. The “anti-fa” protesters who shout-down PEGIDA and other conservatives take it for granted that borders should be open to all comers. But one certain outcome of the new immigrant influx is the further racialization of politics and growing demographic pressure on ethnic Europeans. Racialization will take the form of sectarianism, ethnic parties, multiculturalism, school indoctrination, political correctness and affirmative action – discrimination meant to equalise outcomes. Racialized politics is already a fact of life in diverse societies such as Britain, France, the United States and Australia.
Throughout recorded history societies controlled immigration, especially when it involved large numbers. Angela Merkel’s and Francois Hollande’s open door policy is a reckless social experiment that is already inducing compassion fatigue. Nationalist and anti-immigration parties are rising in Austria, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, and Switzerland.
The ethnic inequality discussed earlier is an important cause of racialization. By the second generation poorer immigrant groups, especially those that are culturally or racially visible, become susceptible to radicalization by ideologies that legitimate grievances. These ideologies help immigrants rationalise their low socioeconomic status and sense of alienation by making them out to be victims of white racism. The ideologies are acquired from universities, schools, the media, social workers, politicians and ethnic leaders.
Victimhood ideologies also produce guilt and fear in whites, by linking their ethnic identities – and only theirs – to extremism and fascism.[xviii] This is unfair because white majorities are typically less ethnocentric than minorities.
The myth of minority victimhood conditions the white majority to accept replacement-level immigration. These doctrines have been influential in English-speaking countries and much of Western Europe since the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.
Meanwhile in Germany immigration politics has started in the non-democratic mode typical of ethnic politics throughout the West. No referendum is planned to give Germans a choice concerning their destiny. With minor exceptions, citizens do not even have the option of voting against the open door policy in a normal election, because the major parties support open borders. Germans who wish to have a say in immigration policy must vote for new parties that have not yet been captured by special interests.
Reduced civil liberties
Rising diversity undermines civil rights. Wherever the founding ethnic group has lost control of immigration, governments come under pressure from the political left and their minority clients to suppress “hate speech”, which can include statements of opinion and fact. The limiting of free speech also precedes and helps cause the rise of replacement level immigration. But certainly it is also an effect of diversity.
Restrictions of speech have a chilling effect on public debate. The millions now flooding into Germany and Europe are beneficiaries of this repression. Their presence will only increase pressure on government to crack down on restless natives. The underlying reason for the crackdown will be the rise of massive endemic social conflict, wholly predictable and indeed predicted by social scientists.
Benefits? Arguments for open borders
Are these costs outweighed by the benefits proposed by Angela Merkel and her supporters? Six main arguments have been advanced to persuade Germans to accept the influx.
1. The first argument is Merkel’s claim that Germany and Europe are morally obliged to settle genuine refugees. There is obviously a moral duty to help but the argument that refugees must be settled in Europe fails for two simple reasons. Firstly, many of the incomers are not refugees but economic immigrants. Secondly, the heavy costs imposed by the influx on native Germans means that a moral policy must optimise the two sides’ interests, not maximize immigrant welfare at the expense of the host society. After all, the first duty of governments, especially in democracies, is to protect their constituents. Germany and the EU could be helping refugees in or near their own countries.
2. The second argument is Merkel’s claim that Germany will benefit by throwing off its Nazi legacy once and for all. This is a despicable argument because Germans are innocent of genocide, unless one accepts the Nazi doctrine of collective racial guilt. The opposite effect is more likely. Vilification of ethnic Germans could intensify because Merkel has launched a new era of racialized politics in which exponents of mass Third World immigration will use any victimhood narrative to silence the majority.
3. The third argument was stated by the German Interior Minister in mid September 2015.[xix] He claimed that the government had no choice but to accept any number of refugees because Article 16a, paragraph 1, of the German constitution, the Grundgesetz, states that “Persons persecuted on political grounds shall have the right of asylum.” This is a strictly legalistic argument because, as we have seen, there is no moral duty to settle large numbers of refugees in Germany. So let’s look more closely at the law. Paragraph 2 of Article 16a of the Grundgesetz states that paragraph 1 does not apply to persons entering the Federal Republic “from a member state of the European Communities”.[xx] The overwhelming majority of refugees entering Germany have come via other EU states. Germany was entitled to prevent them entering but the Merkel government suspended the Dublin Regulation, which requires asylum seekers to be returned to the European country of first arrival.[xxi] How could Germany have accepted this EU law in the first place if it contradicted the German constitution? If, on the other hand, the Dublin Regulation reflects article 16a of the constitution, how could it be so easily suspended?[xxii] Clearly Germany and the EU can legally protect their borders. It is Merkel and other EU leaders who allowed the influx, not any law.
4. The fourth argument was advanced by Merkel and Mercedes CEO Dieter Zetsch, who maintained that the refugees will make productive workers. Zetsch stated: “They could, like the guest workers from decades ago, help us preserve and improve our prosperity. For Germany cannot any more fill the jobs available.” This is utopian speculation that runs counter to precedent and knowledge of cultural differences. More likely, Germany will be burdened by immigrant communities suffering high unemployment and concentrated in low productivity unskilled jobs.
5. The fifth argument is even more radical. It was stated by demographer Stephan Sievert, of the Berlin Institute for Population and Development. Sievert optimistically stated that Germany’s population was at last growing, after decades of stagnation.[xxiii] Sievert does not admit that his implied policy entails the rapid demographic replacement of the German ethnic family, in effect cultural genocide by stages. If the German people were given the opportunity to vote on this policy, perhaps a majority would agree with German author Botho Strauss, who declared that he prefers to live among his own people even if they are falling in numbers, rather than live in an imposed cultural mix.[xxiv]
6. A sixth argument has been offered by Merkel, in her New Year’s address for 2016. It is the open border mantra, that immigration is generally good. Merkel stated that “countries have always benefited from successful immigration, both economically and socially”.[xxv] It is a danger sign when highly educated people resort to tautologies, such as deducing that successful immigration is successful. In fact immigrant societies – America, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, France, and others – are all well down the track of turning their founding cultures into minorities without ever offering them a democratic choice. Merkel also followed the usual pro-immigration line by accusing her critics of “coldness or even hatred”, implying that she is motivated by warmer emotions. And she foreshadowed a new inclusive definition of what it means to be German, which is a prudent move for someone intent on demographic transformation. Omitted from this latest statement, but likely to follow, are other elements of the pro-immigration mantra, such as diversity is strength, or German identity is the same as citizenship, or school children must be educated in tolerance, or immigrants rescue German culture from its white-bread impoverishment. These arguments and assertions are completely normal in Western societies whose political classes have opened them to mass immigration.
These six alleged benefits of massive unselected immigration are typical of the intellectual level of open border arguments elsewhere in Western countries. That such shallow and sometimes mendacious rhetoric is uttered by intelligent individuals would be impossible without their near monopoly of media access resulting from the ideological intolerance that has suppressed open debate for decades.
Conclusion: Jeopardy. Will Europe Survive?
The evidence just reviewed indicates that dire warnings are not overstated. The ethnic transformation now being inflicted on Germany and the rest of Europe by its political class, if continued, will severely damage European culture and way of life. The opposed arguments are flimsy and fail entirely to address the perceived risks. Commentators are not exaggerating then they warn that European civilization, the result of three millennia of cultural evolution, is in jeopardy.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and journalists and politicians will listen respectfully to the people’s concerns and aspirations. Perhaps Merkel and Hollande will recover from their moral mania and free themselves from special interests long enough to deign the flood to recede. Perhaps the EU will formulate a conservative immigration policy, one that does not cater mainly to the interests of immigrants, minorities and the corporate sector but also respects Europeans by preserving their identities, cultures, domestic peace, equality and national cohesion. It is more likely that voters will solve the problem than Europe’s intellectually corrupt political class, and that new parties will be granted the power to reclaim national sovereignty from the failed EU project. In that case the EU will collapse, as individual nations move to protect themselves from the Shengen Agreement, now become a mortal threat instead of a promise. That could form the basis for a new trans-European movement that protects the identities and ways of life of individual nations and Europe as a whole.
But until now these considerations have been foreign to Angela Merkel and her supporters. She sells her open door policy as humanitarian. But in reality this is a cruel policy likely to produce suffering across Germany and Europe. She has failed to consider the interests of individual European nations or of Europe as a whole. Europe’s political class has, in effect, embraced the most aggressive form of multiculturalism, in which the establishment forms an alliance with minorities to dominate the majority.
The suffering the open door policy will bring – the inequality, including the special evil of ethnic stratification, the collapse of welfare, the crime, the slums and no-go areas, the degradation of women, the racialization of politics, the decline in wages, the loss of national cohesion, the growing sense of loss and alienation among Germans and immigrants alike, the accelerated replacement of Europeans in their ancient homelands, the constriction of civil rights and the pervasive chaos – all of this will last for generations.
Merkel is doubly cruel because she is stripping developing societies of their more educated and industrious people. The inevitable fall in European foreign aid will hurt poor countries around the world, caused by the stagnation of European economies and decline in social capital.
A responsible policy would resemble the British strategy of helping refugees in or near their own countries while restricting their immigration to Europe, though it should be noted that in Britain non-refugee immigration is out of control.
For Germany the situation is more threatening due to its toxic political culture, despite its present low level of ethnic diversity. The country’s chances of recovery – which means adopting a sustainable immigration policy – depend on how the following questions are answered by events.
How long will it take for the present reaction to become a powerful political force? How long before Germany’s leadership feels the wrath of a people enraged at the prospect of the transformation of their country? And should the reaction become intense, will citizens remain mobilised long enough to build political organisations sufficiently powerful to correct the situation? Will they be able to inflict political censure on Merkel and the political class so stark that it neutralises the incentives offered by the establishment? Will they be able to do so in the teeth of relentless attacks from the mainstream media and educational establishments? Will they stay focused long enough to renegotiate EU arrangements or withdraw Germany from them? Will they persist long enough to push through constitutional amendments that define Germany as the homeland of the German people and allow legal redress against leaders who attempt demographic replacement?
Whether or not there is a pause in the influx, Germans and other Europeans should educate themselves about the deep causes of this disaster and how to prevent its recurrence.
You must not allow for anything remotely like this, Europe. Your very EGI are at stake of permanent extinction.
The first hypotheses of his celebrity and phenomenon are that they are likely to derive of neo-liberal motives to break up anything like coherent unionization of people; and Jewish motives to keep everything mixed-up while their culture remains stable and under control - they want to keep everyone else mixed and perpetually off balance while they increasingly rule the roost as the only coherent and sufficiently intelligent people to rule.
His celebrity, then, appears on the BBC to denounce his family who reject and oppose Islam. While groups in coherent White interests can work with Indian Hindus as staunch anti-Islamicists for one major point, he apparently began drifting away from his Hindu upbringing through Arab associations early in his life and fell into the YKW/Abrahamic/neo-liberal race-mix-it-up agenda: spawning a mixed child which abetted his commitment to antagonize genetically coherent, non-Abrahamic identities. He taunts British security as “not that great.”
Mixed in the sandbox - Jihadi Junior
Hence, he has emerged a veritable role model - a Jewish/neo-liberal celebrity. He is the face, the didactic face, of anti-liberalism. However, this “interesting” neo-liberal and Jewish turmoil over mixed relations and motives has a clarifying effect. The agency of simplification derives of overly complex interfacing - where lines between people and ways of life are overwrought with ambivalence.
Toward that end he wants to make life simple by making clear the fact that not only people like him, but Islam itself, like all Abrahamic religions, has no place in Europe. Islam should be illegal and mosques should be converted for other use and enjoyment - centers for European people to practice devotion and sacrament of their relationships and environment would be a nice alternative. In fact, institutionalized, though optional, non-Abrahamic alternatives to liberalism for Europeans would do well to occupy these places instead.
Failing this optional recourse to liberalism, Jihad, by contrast, is a short circuited expression of anti-liberalism in Abraham’s race-mixing agenda. When you mix circuits what happens? They short-out.
Jihadi Johns - Abrahamic servants - a short circuited expression of race-mixing and anti-liberalism.
“The Iran deal is one of the worst deals ever…. they’ve violated it already… Iran wants to take over Saudi Arabia, they always have…they want the oil, they’ve always wanted that… you watch, I predicted a lot of things, I say get the oil, take the oil, keep the oil.. I’ve been saying that for three years and everybody’s saying, ‘oh, I can’t do that, it’s a sovereign country.’ There is no country! They have a bunch of dishonest people, they’ve created Isis.. Hillary Clinton created Isis with Obama!”
“I am the most militaristic person in this room”
Trump is pandering to the same kind of audience that W. Bush relied upon to get The U.S. into these Jewish wars.
“I’m going to build-up our military so strong that we’re never going to have to use it.. ...probably.”
“I said don’t go into Iraq and destabilize it….now you have Iran taking over Iraq, second largest oil reserves in the world”
“We are weak and we are pathetic and it has to be stopped.”
