Last week the wickedly delayed and secreted and, thus, widely written-off Home Office report Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation – Characteristics of Offending finally saw the light of day, albeit only after FoI requests from the media and much in-fighting between Home Secretary Priti Patel and her recalcitrant civil servants.  It literally whitewashed the paedophile rape and prostituton of white girls, and some Sikh and black girls too.  It’s white men, it said.  “No credible evidence for a far-right stereotype that has spread widely in the media”, the Guardian said.

Generally honest assessments are available at the Speccie, written by the doughty Patrick O’Flynn:

Digging into the report’s section on the ethnicity of offenders one learns that an official data collection exercise in 2011 involving police forces and other agencies found that of 2,300 possible offenders there was no basic information held about 1,100. Among the remaining 1,200, ethnicity data was not known for 38 per cent. Of the remaining suspects – approximately 750 by my arithmetic – ‘30 per cent of offenders were White, while 28 per cent were Asian’. This presumably is the finding used to justify ‘most commonly White’ – but which seems to miss the obvious point that the white population of England and Wales is around 80 per cent overall.

A second smaller study from 2013 mentioned in the report found that of 306 offenders looked at, 75 per cent were Asian, which actually amounts to a ten-fold over-representation, though the report does not point this out.

Instead, it trots out irrelevances to lead itself away from the veritable elephant in the room. At one point it cites information from police forces suggesting that ‘the nationalities and ethnicities of offenders and suspects… varied considerably, including American, Angolan, Bangladeshi, Bengal, British…’ (etc. ad infinitum). Yet has anyone ever suggested that there are nationalities completely immune to taking part in group CSE? Not to my knowledge.

... and at Spiked!, written by someone named Rakib Ehsan:

If the (woeful) defence for inaction is that by intervening in cases where white girls were being abused by groups of Pakistani-origin men, there is a risk of upsetting race relations, then is it not plausible that the police and city council would have been more comfortable with making robust interventions if the majority of both victims and suspected offenders share the same ethnic background?

... and at the Daily Mail, written by Labour Party animal and obsessive anti-racist but (for professional purposes, you understand) right-wing journo Dan Hodges.  He is claiming to have the inside story:

READ MORE...

The Future of Germany is Unclear

Red Pill Germany 28 Nov 2020

Israel Blamed! Iran Vows to Avenge Assassination of Nuclear Scientist

Zionist Report 28 Nov 2020:

“Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday accused arch-foe Israel of acting as a “mercenary” for the US, blaming it for the assassination of prominent nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.”

       

Related at Majorityrights:

Trump Administration Raison D’être Realized - Trump Withdraws US from Iran Deal and Renews Sanctions

Democrat ‘Justice’ Bill Would Seize Farmland And Give It To Blacks - Border Crisis Under Biden

UPDATE: Abby Martin’s Lawsuit Over Israel Loyalty Oath Mandate in US

By Grégoire Canlorbe, American Renaissance, October 30, 2020:

       

Frank Kemp Salter is an Australian academic and researcher. Most of his career was at the Max Planck Research Centre for Human Ethology, in Andechs, Germany. He is best known for writings on ethnicity and ethnic interests. He studies political phenomena using conventional methods and the theories of behavioral biology. He has written about hierarchy (Emotions in Command, 1995), indoctrination (Ethnic Conflict and Indoctrination, 1998, edited with I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt), ethnic altruism and conflict (Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism, 2002, Risky Transactions: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity, 2004), and genetic interests (On Genetic Interests, 2003). In a review, Jared Taylor called On Genetic Interests “a vitally important contribution to our understanding of the significance of race and ethnicity in human affairs.” Dr. Salter has also been an adviser to Australia’s populist One Nation Party.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You write about the biological underpinnings of the obedience to one’s superiors in a hierarchy, especially in a bureaucracy. Please tell us more about this.

Frank Salter: In writing Emotions in Command, I observed command-giving in many organizations, from the military, to courts and parliaments, to nightclub doormen and theatrical rehearsals. The methods and observational categories were very much in the ethological tradition of Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, whom I later joined as a colleague at his Max Planck Research Centre.

I expected to find dominance, and did, but I also found friendly behavior. Effective leaders take care to soften commands and bind subordinates to them through generosity and fairness. In doing this, they are helped by what I called the “dominance infrastructure,” this being the organization’s set of rules backed by inducements and punishments. My observations confirmed part of Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy: that it is a rule-governed hierarchy. Being rule governed, with obedience largely ensured by the dominance infrastructure, administrative positions can be filled by a wide range of personalities. Domineering behavior or brilliant leadership have negative and positive effects respectively, but are not required for the organization to function.

       

It was the discovery of the affiliative component of hierarchy that led me to search for an “affiliative infrastructure.” That search led me to study ethnic ties, which can bind large populations. I wanted to know if there such a thing as an “ethnic infrastructure”?

Grégoire Canlorbe: A popular claim by J. Philippe Rushton is that there are racial differences in ethnocentrism, with the least genetically heterogeneous ethnic groups being the most ethnocentric. Do you agree?

Frank Salter: Philippe Rushton’s theory was not the basis of my research into ethnic kinship. Instead, it was William Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness, which is generally accepted in ethology and evolutionary biology. The theory states that kinship bonds promote the reproduction of shared genes. Hamilton extended his theory to ethnic groups. I’m not aware of the finding you describe (that variations in genetic homogeneity and the degree of genetic similarity predict the level of ethnocentrism), though it has a certain plausibility. What I am aware of is that the degree of genetic homogeneity is related to solidarity, a sense of social cohesion; or, to put it differently, conflict increases when society becomes more genetically diverse. That finding, which is compatible with Hamilton’s theory, has been repeated again and again. The work of the late Tatu Vanhanen is an excellent example.

Nonetheless it seems that a more diverse society can actually lead to greater ethnocentrism: not at the level of society taken as whole, but at the level of the different ethnic components of society. As you can see in the case of America especially (and this is a universal trend in the West), white majorities are now increasingly ethnocentric, but it clearly doesn’t compare to the very high ethnocentrism of black or Latino minorities. This is an issue the media and the universities don’t understand, and never talk about.

READ MORE...

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, November 11, 2020:

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey marvel at how blacks will welcome Kamala Harris. They also discuss new posthumous honors for Trayvon Martin, good sense in Sweden, racial preferences for a Covid vaccine, the decolonization of art, and more mush from Ibram Kendi.

INTERVIEW

Ruuben Kaalep: “The Intermarium has to be a voluntary alliance, not like the EU”

Visigrad Post, NOVEMBER 16, 2020

Reading Time: 11 minutes

Interview with Ruuben Kaalep, member of the Estonian Parliament and member of EKRE, the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia: “We need to be able to play on the global stage, and for that we need to put our forces together and support each other. But the Intermarium has to be a voluntary alliance, not like the EU.”

At the end of summer, Ruuben Kaalep came to Hungary at the invitation of the Hungarian nationalist party Mi Hazánk (Our Homeland). Ruuben Kaalep is one of the main advocates for the Intermarium project, a political and geostrategic plan aiming to regroup the Baltic countries, the Visegrád 4, Ukraine, Croatia, Slovenia, Belarus, Moldova, and Romania, forming a kind of a triangle between the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the Adriatic Sea.

Although this list changes from time to time, sometimes including other Balkan countries, the Scandinavian countries, or even Austria, the Intermarium’s aim stays the same: to coordinate cooperation among the countries of Central and Eastern Europe — with the notable exception of Russia — in order to protect the interests of the region.

For its supporters, the project is the best way to preserve the way of life, security, and independence of the CEE countries, by “freeing them from Western domination and protecting them from Russian imperialism.”

The Intermarium project is not a new idea, although its revival gained visibility after the Maïdan revolution and the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which the advocates of the Intermarium perceived as new Russian aggression necessitating regional cooperation to avoid such a thing in the future.

One hundred years ago, the post-WW1 reborn Polish state was dreaming of rebuilding the great Polish empire connecting the Baltic and the Black Seas, known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, able to contain Russia. This Międzymorze — “between-seas” — project of the Polish elites also included countries such as Hungary, Yugoslavia, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania, making it the first modern project to bring together the CEE countries. Placed between Russia and the West, cutting off the Balkans from the rest of Europe, this geopolitical project always had many critics in both Russia and the West. Nowadays, if the Intermarium is mostly a little-known, pan-nationalist project, advocated mainly by Ukrainian, Balt, Croatian, and Polish political groups, the Three Seas Initiative can be seen as an implementation of Intermarium’s basic idea.

Intermarium has bigger ambitions than the announced goals of the Three Seas Initiative (gathering Baltic countries, the V4, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria) which is built on an energy and transportation cooperation scheme aiming to guarantee energy independence of the CEE countries from Russia while being financed by the USA. For the advocates of the Intermarium project, the future of the region should lie on the rejection of three main enemies: Russia, NATO, and communism.

Ferenc Almássy met with Ruuben Kaalep while he was in Hungary in order to discuss his advocacy of the Intermarium project.

In red, a version of the Intermarium, gathering Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belorussia, Ukraine, Moldova, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia.

Ferenc Almássy: You are member of the Estonian Parliament, but you are, can we say, a nationalist? Can you accept this epithet?

Ruuben Kaalep: Absolutely. A nationalist is what I am. It’s the main thing for me.

Ferenc Almássy: So how is it possible that in Estonia, nationalists are part of a governmental coalition?

READ MORE...