Bankers Making Apple Run Sweatshops in China

The sweatshops Apple runs in China have recently come up in the news. Instead of using machines to assemble iPhones, iPods and iPads, Apple is using humans as machines. A factory in Shenzen employs 430,000 people who work in halls with up to 20,000 to 30,000 people each. Workers aren’t allowed to talk to each other, there are no recreational breaks and people work under video surveillance. Some of the workers are children in their early teens, who are kept away from sight when inspectors arrive. Whereas the official work day is 8 hours, the standard shift is 12 hours, which commonly extends to 14-16 hours, at 70 cents per hour.

People asking for overtime are shrugged off and blacklisted; if they resign in protest, they’d have a difficult time seeking another job. Seeking to unionize is an imprisonable offense.

Occupational hazards include exposure to neurotoxic agents used to polish glass, such as hexane, whereas safer cleansers aren’t used because they take longer to evaporate. Monotonous, repetitive work leads to carpal tunnel syndrome and other disabilities. Those with disabling injuries are out of luck.

Many of these human-bots haven’t even seen in person, let alone held, a complete, functional iPad or another Apple product in their hand to evaluate what it is that they’re building. And when they sleep, they do so in cubicles packed with bunk beds, like prisoners in a crowded facility.

And to think that some people would describe this despicable situation as a wealth transfer from the the West to the East in terms of manufacturing and other jobs sent abroad! Superficially, the earnings of these workers have easily quadrupled compared to their working in rice farms earlier, but look at their living conditions, and watch as the purchasing power of money keeps going down because the government borrows from bankers, at interest, money the bankers create out of thin air.

If the Chinese masses work in farms, produce enough food for themselves, produce surplus food to barter against petroleum, medicine, etc., and the government creates it own money without debt, the Chinese can live independently and can sustain themselves, whereas now their economy’s in the hands of the international bankers while many of their people work like machines, sustaining mechanical injuries and damage from exposure to toxic chemicals.

The West doesn’t benefit either. Many Western consumers are precluded from buying bling bling such as iPads because of a lack of disposable income, and a good proportion of those who buy such bling bling do so by borrowing money, for which they’ll pay dearly in terms of interest.

Apple could technically improve worker conditions by cutting its profit margins, but is unable to do so because it’s a publicly traded corporation, and financial corporations have enough of a stake in it to dictate policies, the bottom line being increased profits to attract investors. When the time’s ripe, these financial corporations will bring down the stock market, thus effecting a wealth transfer from the masses of naive investors to the bankers behind the financial corporations.

Many of the financial corporations having a stake in major non-financial corporations in major economies such as America’s are located offshore as well as many of the bankers. This diminishes the odds of a successful political revolt against the bankers. And we can see that the outsourcing of manufacturing and numerous other jobs from the major Western economies is further insurance against the same as weakened Western masses are less capable of revolt.

Posted by R-news on Friday, January 27, 2012 at 03:39 PM in Business & Industry,  Economics & Finance,  Globalisation,  World Affairs
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

A potential one-man mental hospital for Anders Behring Breivik!

If one considers the logistics of the Norwegian massacre on July 22, 2011, the anniversary of the King David Hotel bombing by Jews, there’s no way one man did it, and the totality of the evidence points to Jews. The alleged perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, was later declared insane and unfit for trial, the rationale given for his insanity being completely bogus. Anders Behring Breivik is reportedly kept in isolation. Since he needs to be confined to a mental hospital, now they’re saying that there’s no psychiatric facility in Norway secure enough to prevent him from escaping, and hence they may build a one-man hospital to confine Breivik!

At this point on has to wonder whether Anders Behring Breivik is an actual person. I don’t think he is. There’s the bogus facebook page, the digitally edited photographs of this alleged person, the strange low-resolution picture allegedly depicting a man shooting people on Utoya Island taken from above [who took it?], the bogus rationale for insanity, and the latest excuse to avoid people interacting with a real person named Breivik. There’s also all the Jews and Jewish propaganda disseminators who received an emailed manifesto, allegedly from Breivik, shortly before the attacks, which according to the narrative must have been when he briefly stopped somewhere to email his contacts while driving to his destination, loaded with bombs, guns and ammunition. The email recipients haven’t provided the header of the email so that the email address and IP of the sender can be traced. It’s piling up. The job is more kosher than it originally appeared.

Posted by R-news on Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 03:29 PM in Media,  World Affairs
Comments (16) | Tell-a-Friend

The piracy of digital copyrighted content: SOPA, PIPA, etc.

Readers will be aware of legislative endeavors such as SOPA and PIPA (also ACTA and others), superficially intended to tackle the problem of piracy of digital copyrighted content, and the recent seizure of megaupload.com and associated arrests. Whereas the copyright owners could work out deals with file hosts to charge reasonable fees for the distribution of their copyrighted content, they’re not interested. It has been pointed out that a major reason is that they wish to control the dissemination of information—“they” being the very small minority that owns the copyrights to the majority of accessible-for-fee digital content. Digital technologies make it easy to cheaply produce, or simply upload, and use the bandwidth of file hosts, such as the former megaupload, to disseminate gigabytes of information that the authorities may not like. But there are two other perspectives that should also be discussed.

The first is about the nature of copyrighted content and the meaning of piracy. The pirate bay says:

Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would “do for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear.” He called it the Kinetoscope. He was not only amongst the first to record video, he was also the first person to own the copyright to a motion picture.

Because of Edison’s patents for the motion pictures it was close to financially impossible to create motion pictures in the North American east coast. The movie studios therefore relocated to California, and founded what we today call Hollywood. The reason was mostly because there was no patent. There was also no copyright to speak of, so the studios could copy old stories and make movies out of them—like

Fantasia, one of Disney’s biggest hits ever.

So, the whole basis of this industry, that today is screaming about losing control over immaterial rights, is that they circumvented immaterial rights. They copied (or put in their terminology: “stole”) other people’s creative works, without paying for it. They did it in order to make a huge profit. Today they’re all successful and most of the studios are on the Fortune 500 list of the richest companies in the world. Congratulations—it’s all based on being able to re-use other people’s creative works. And today they hold the rights to what other people create.

If you want to get something released, you have to abide to their rules. The ones they created after circumventing other people’s rules.

The reason they are always complaintng about “pirates” today is simple. We’ve done what they did. We circumvented the rules they created and created our own. We crushed their monopoly by giving people something more efficient. We allow people to have direct communication between each other, circumventing the profitable middle man, that in some cases take over 107% of the profits (yes, you pay to work for them).

It’s all based on the fact that we’re competition. We’ve proven that their existence in their current form is no longer needed. We’re just better than they are.

And the funny part is that our rules are very similar to the founding ideas of the USA. We fight for freedom of speech. We see all people as equal. We believe that the public, not the elite, should rule the nation. We believe that laws should be created to serve the public, not the rich corporations.

The Pirate Bay is truly an international community. The team is spread all over the globe—but we’ve stayed out of the USA. We have Swedish roots and a Swedish friend said this: The word SOPA means “trash” in Swedish. The word PIPA means “a pipe” in Swedish. This is of course not a coincidence. They want to make the internet into a one-way pipe, with them at the top, shoving trash through the pipe down to the rest of us obedient consumers. The public opinion on this matter is clear. Ask anyone on the street and you’ll learn that no one wants to be fed with trash. Why the U.S. government wants the American people to be fed with trash is beyond our imagination but we hope that you will stop them, before we all drown...

...To fix the “problem of piracy” one should go to the source of the problem. The entertainment industry say they’re creating “culture” but what they really do is stuff like selling overpriced plushy dolls and making 11-year-old girls become anorexic... either from working in the factories that creates the dolls for basically no salary or by watching movies and tv shows that make them think that they’re fat.

More here.

Thaddeus Russell provides additional details about how Thomas Edison’s intellectual property and equipment were stolen:

Soon after he invented the motion picture camera and projector, Thomas Edison formed his own movie production and distribution company. In 1908, Edison joined with nine other film companies to form the Motion Picture Patents Company, a monopoly that attempted to control the making, distribution, and showing of all movies in the United States. Edison and “The Trust” pledged to make only movies that promoted wholesome, Christian, and “American” values. But on the Lower East Side, a group of entrepreneurial Jewish immigrants used Edison’s inventions to produce and screen their own films, which were shown in thousands of nickelodeons – five-cent movie theaters – in working-class neighborhoods all over the country. These “outlaw” filmmakers started out as vaudeville and burlesque promoters, and many of their movies were sexier, more violent, and far more entertaining than the bland fare put out by the Edison monopoly.

The great inventor was furious that “Jewish profiteers” were stealing his patent, getting rich from it, and using it to spread “smut” across America. So too were law enforcement officials. In 1907 a judge in Chicago wrote that the nickelodeons “caused, indirectly or directly, more juvenile crime coming into my court than all other causes combined.” Shortly thereafter the Chicago city council passed an ordinance granting power to the chief of police to censor motion pictures played in the city. In New York in 1907, soon after the police commissioner recommended that nickel shows be wiped out entirely, Mayor George McClellan was so moved by the evidence of immoral motion pictures polluting the minds of his citizens that on Christmas Day he ordered that all of the illicit motion picture houses be shut down.

Moral condemnations and court injunctions didn’t stop the proliferation of nickelodeons that showed unseemly fare and violated Edison’s patent, so the inventor and his colleagues hired squads of thugs to shut them down. They seized film, beat up directors and actors, forced audiences out of theaters, smashed the nickelodeon arcades and set fire to entire city blocks where they were concentrated. But fortunately for the Jewish renegades, they lived and operated in neighborhoods where hundreds of soldiers stood ready and able to protect them – men like “Big” Jack Zelig, “Lefty Louie” Rosenberg, “Gyp the Blood” Horowitz, Joe “The Greaser” Rosenzweig, and the leaders of the notorious Yiddish Black Hand, Jacob “Johnny” Levinsky and “Charley the Cripple” Vitoffsky. There were even women ready for the fight – fierce, well-armed “gun-mols” like Bessie London, Tillie Finkelstein, Birdie Pomerantz, and Jennie “The Factory” Morris.

Cameras, projectors, film, and sound equipment disappeared from the storerooms of Edison companies and showed up on makeshift movie lots on the Lower East Side. Bullets rained down on the Trust’s enforcers from the rooftops of nickelodeons. And massive fires destroyed the Edison distributors’ warehouses in the Bronx, Philadelphia, and Chicago. By 1915 the Trust had disbanded and the outlaw filmmakers moved west, where they could make bigger and better movies. Who were the men who, with the help of their nicknamed friends, fought Thomas Edison and the law and won? They were Marcus Loew of Loews Theatres and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Carl Laemmle of Universal Pictures, Adolph Zukor of Paramount Pictures, William Fox of Twentieth-Century Fox, and the brothers Harry, Albert, Sam, and Jack Warner.

More.

The second issue’s about disposable income. Most people will support the singers, musicians, authors and content producers they like if they have disposable income, but the same community that has acquired copyright of most written works, music, TV programming and movies produced in recent decades, producing a substantial amount of this work in bad faith—e.g., lies, propaganda—is also behind international banking, thereby impoverishing the majority and making disposable income hard to come up with.

The Hell with these people!

Posted by J Richards on Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 02:23 PM in Global Elitism,  Media,  That Question Again,  World Affairs
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine

Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine
By Robert Reis

The Irish Independent newspaper published a report on a speech delivered at a new Holocaust exhibition in Dublin on January 23, 2012 by the Justice Minister Alan Shatter. (State ‘did nothing for Jews in WWII’, By Breda Heffernan, The Irish Independent, Tuesday January 24 2012)

Mr. Shatter accused Ireland of turning its back on the suffering of the Jews during World War Two. He proclaimed that the Irish State had lost its “moral compass” during and after the war. He said, “In the period following Hitler coming to power and preceding the Second World War, the doors of this state were kept firmly closed to German Jewish families trying to escape from persecution and death.”

Shatter told his audience that records unearthed by the Minister from the Department of Foreign Affairs while he was researching the period many years ago show that the then Irish Ambassador to Germany, Charles Bewley, recommended the Government refuse visa requests from Jews to protect Ireland from “contamination”.

Shatter was referring to Charles Bewley.

Continued...

Posted by Robert Reis on Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 02:12 PM in History,  Irish Politics,  Jewish Diaspora
Comments (6) | Tell-a-Friend

The Relevance of Ethnocentrism

Previously it was shown that intelligence was of practically no relevance to explaining spectacular Jewish success (control of the mainstream media, ZOG, etc.). An alternative proposed was ethnocentrism. This can be examined, too.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC), at the University of Chicago, has conducted an annual General Social Survey (GSS) of a random, representative sample of Americans from 1972 onward.

In 1996 and 2004, it asked respondents to answer how close they felt to their racial or ethnic group [variable coded as ETHCLOSE]. The 4 possible responses were: very close, close, not very close, not close at all. Assigning these responses values of 4, 3, 2, 1, respectively, Ron Guhname provided the following averages:

Table 1. ETHCLOSE values
Orthodox Jew (3.86), Conservative Jew (3.71), black (3.53), Norwegian (3.36), All Jews (3.31), Mexican (3.25), Italian (3.20), Irish (3.19), Reform Jew (3.15), American average (3.15), French (3.11), Polish (3.04), English/Welsh (3.02), German (3.01), Scottish (3.00), Other Jew (2.92).

ETHCLOSE captures the core of ethnocentrism and will have to do in the absence of better data on representative samples. Jews, on average, are more ethnocentric than whites. Now let’s look at the proportions among whites, by year:

Table 2. ETHCLOSE answers for whites (percentages)
1996: very close (33.9), close (41.2), not very close (18.9), not close at all (6.0)
2004: very close (39.5), close (36.3), not very close (19.6), not close at all (4.7)
Average: very close (36.5), close (38.9), not very close (19.2), not close at all (5.4)

In the data, Jews are coded as white. Assume that all Jews who say they’re not very close to Jews are lying, in reality very close to their group. This gives a population having a size of about 3.3% of the white population that is very close to its ethnic/racial group, whereas at least 30% of whites are very close to their ethnic/racial grouping. In other words, the number of ethnocentric whites considerably exceeds the number of ethnocentric Jews. We’re dealing with some crudeness, but in spite of making some assumptions that favor those who explain spectacular Jewish success in terms of ethnocentrism, we have to conclude that this couldn’t possibly be an explanation.

Continued...

Posted by J Richards on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:59 AM in Education,  European Nationalism,  Social Sciences,  That Question Again,  White Nationalism
Comments (37) | Tell-a-Friend

Betrayal, Lawrence, and the English working-class

Earlier today I came across this video at BDF posted by Chuffer, a good, reliable nationalist and ex-BNP member, and a regular participant in the BDF bear-pit.  The theme of injustice and betrayal is not new to us, of course, though it is certainly a pleasure to see it so well structured.  But the street interview section is important, and especially refreshing to see.  There are the authentic voices of the English working-class who have been been subjected to eighteen years of relentless Lawrence propaganda.  And they know it.

Still, one wonders why they exhibit such a resigned attitude, and not more fight.  Then one remembers how deserted these people are.  Not the politicians, not the press, not the Church, not the schools, not the law ... no part of civil society spares them a word of acknowledgement.  It truly is the most complete betrayal imaginable.  And yet, as this video shows, the Lawrence propaganda almost certainly now exercises more influence over the minds of the traitors than it does the betrayed.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, January 23, 2012 at 07:36 PM in Activism,  Anti-racism and white genocide,  British Politics
Comments (40) | Tell-a-Friend

The Psychological Witchcraft is wearing off

The Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty is evidence that the psychological witchcraft of Black/Jew political correctness is wearing off.

The people working on the Paul campaign now will go taqqiyah themselves into Congress and then turn out to be Ron Paulites.

It’s a good thing the “racist newsletters” came up so much, to remind the Paulites that “racism” is realism.  I’m noticing that the black commentators are outraged at the conspicuous young whites lack of outrage at Ron Paul and his newsletters.  Young White Paul supporters are “betraying” the black supremacist enforcers of political correctness like Dari’l Jinkins.  Did you see his outraged Ron Paul videos?  He can’t believe that young white people support RP, and don’t care about DJ’s racial sensitivities.

That’s the great development of 2012—the “racism” blackmail is losing it’s magical power, and “magic” is of course just psychology, rather than supernatural power.  Magic and witchcraft are mindweapon tactics—Psychological Operations that have always existed throughout human history.  There is no supernatural; it is just psy-ops.

Those who use psychological witchcraft have to come to terms with the fact that each spell they conjure is mortal, just as people are mortal.  The Civil Rights spell is running its course already; its arteries are blocked, and it’s going to die of a heart attack.

The wizened Jewish spell grew in power by conjuring the Civil Rights spell.  Blacks infused the ancient Jewish witchcraft with new energy.  Blacks were like their children.  But now both spells are losing power together, having wrought great destruction and ruin unto the world, and their trajectory is only “more ruin, more destruction.”

Continued...

Posted by Kievsky on Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 09:08 AM in
Comments (14) | Tell-a-Friend

No to 70 million.

It has been posted here before, this is just a 3 month reminder. Any British citizens should sign the No to 70 million e-petition. As immigration restriction goes its as mild as it gets but better to send a message than none at all.

No to 70 million

Posted by Lurker on Friday, January 20, 2012 at 01:21 PM in
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

Soren Renner at VoR

Tom Sunic interviews Soren here.  Run-time 35min 28sec.

Tom gets Soren to expand, somewhat, on his adoption of the Gramscian dictum “pessimism of the intellect - optimism of the will”, on religion in our present woes, on the concept of the enemy, and on civilisational collapse.  Probably the best interview Soren has given.  Still some dark areas for me, but much to think about.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 07:42 PM in White Nationalism
Comments (120) | Tell-a-Friend

Supply and demand: The economics of mass immigration

It was claimed that the devastation of the Third World by bankers creates plenty of would-be economic immigrants. The retort was that this is a Judeo-Marxist canard used to induce ‘white guilt’ and justify various ‘aid’ and ‘refugee’ programs. The retort added that parts of Africa in 1812 had yet to see the wheel, the implication being that Third world nations have been built or economically enhanced by the West. The retort also blames slaughters and devastation in the Third World on their natives alone.

Let’s see. Civilization shouldn’t be confused with economic security. An isolated hunter-gatherer tribe living in a jungle typically has sufficient food to eat, clothing and living structures; they are willing and able to provide for themselves. Whereas in a modern civilization such as the U.S., tens of millions are unable to provide food for themselves, in spite of being willing and able to work, and must depend on government handouts such as food stamps, and there are millions of homeless people.

The reason for the economic problems of Western nations is that malicious bankers issue and control money, which is also the case for nearly all Third World nations. So how does the Third world fare under banker control?

For a while now, this is how the international bankers have dealt with the Third World [some things apply to some Western nations also]:

If I recall correctly, Professor Joseph Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize for his work on the following 4-step process.

PRIVATIZATION
Bribe a nation’s leaders to trim billions off the sale price of national assets.

CAPITAL MARKET LIBERALIZATION
Repeal laws that tax money going abroad. International bankers pump in money to gamble on property, currency. When the economy starts to look promising, they pull out their money, devastating the nation.

Now the nation needs emergency IMF loans, which the IMF provides by creating the money for loans out of thin air. Two conditions are attached. The nation has to raise its interest rates considerably. These high interest rates will impoverish the nation. The other condition for the loan is that the electricity, water, telephone and gas systems are effectively sold to international corporations.

MARKET-BASED PRICING
The prices of food, water and domestic gas are raised. This results in social unrest, possibly riots. When massive demonstrations or riots occur, investors start pulling out their money, the government goes bankrupt. Foreign financial corporations can now buy many of the nation’s assets at rock-bottom prices.

FREE TRADE
Now international corporations move into developing nations, whereas Third World agricultural products are barricaded from the West. The bankers impose extortionate tariffs, which these countries have to pay for in branded pharmaceuticals, causing soaring rates of death and disease. And so on.

Naturally, Third World nations will experience significant emigration pressures. Residents of some European nations will better understand what the Third World experiences when austerirty measures in their nations become more severe to pay the interests on loans they need from banks.

As of now, people are rioting over gas prices in Nigeria, but before one brings in the violence proneness of blacks, take a guess at what’s caused the rise and toward which purpose. One has to wonder how many other instances of rioting in Third World nations have their root cause in what the international bankers do, not in violence that would occur no matter what. These international bankers are behind numerous wars in the Western hemisphere, and they surely haven’t left the Third world in peace.

Notice that some black African nations are resource-rich but the masses live in poverty. Is this due to the corruption of their elite? They have corrupt elite, but if this were the reason, there would be lots of black billionaires [U.S. dollars] in some African nations, whereas the natural resource-related wealth is siphoned out by the international bankers, in the manner detailed above, and scraps, in comparison, are given to the corrupt elite.

People complain about me focusing on money and the community disproportionately controlling it when there are serious immigration issues to be discussed, but what’s causing the immigration issues? It takes more than merely opening Western borders to immigrants; Third Worlders need an incentive to emigrate en masse, too.

Will the masses be willing to go to a land far, far away where people speak a different language and have a very different culture if the masses have a reasonable income/sustenance where they live, and live in a relatively peaceful society? Will the masses be willing to give up the security of their existence for discordance, learning and re-learning skills in a foreign nation and the uncertainty of having a similar level of economic security there? These are important questions to reflect on. A desire to emigrate will be true of some individuals, but not the masses if there’s basic economic security [food, shelter, clothing, base medical facilities] and no warfare or civil strife.

But economic devastation provides a strong incentive for mass emigration pressure in the Third World. And thus we have the demand and supply of contemporary mass immigration into Western nations:

Demand

The bankers need to flood the nations where their diaspora live to undermine ethnic solidarity among the host populations and keep the citizens occupied with all the troubles that accompany racial and cultural diversity. This way the bankers reduce the chances of a public or political revolt that vanquishes them.

Supply

Economically devastated Third Worlders naturally want to emigrate en masse.

So is it wise to complain about immigration levels and focus on blacks, Hispanics, Muslims----like Amren, Vdare, the masses of the “alternative right” or “Third position” crowds----or is it wise to aim for the root cause, which lies in malicious bankers controlling the money supply? And is it wise to just focus on the money issue or also expose some of the other major crimes of these people, such as 9/11? They bring in all these immigrants to undermine ethnic cohesion in the West. Complaining about immigration doesn’t help and exacerbates division. But the money issue and 9/11 are of universal significance and unite the divided against the bankers. And some people complain of conspiracy and detraction from the important issues, such as immigration and multiculturalism, when 9/11 is brought up!

Posted by J Richards on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 12:35 AM in Demographics,  Economics & Finance,  Globalisation,  Immigration,  That Question Again,  White Nationalism
Comments (79) | Tell-a-Friend

Die Juden sind unser Unglück

The Jews are our misfortune! Women and girls, the Jews are your defilers!

NS rally in the Berliner Sportpalast 15.08.35.

Let’s discuss.

Posted by Dan Dare on Monday, January 16, 2012 at 02:43 AM in
Comments (52) | Tell-a-Friend

Dishonorable White father compares his daughter’s racially motivated beating to “a grain of sand”

Excellent example of how the multicult mindset is a child sacrifice cult.

Continued...

Posted by Kievsky on Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 11:16 AM in
Comments (60) | Tell-a-Friend

Key issues

Dr. Graham Lister:

Perhaps the key issues are actually these ones:

“Where is the life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” (T.S. Eliot)

T_ob S_hebbe G_oyim H_arog Eli:

Ugh, dry bread; where’s the honey? In the bottle stolen by the bunny. I can’t eat this, this isn’t funny. Not my fault, we’re out of money.

Whereas in Tel Aviv on a day sunny, cavorting with 9-year-old Russian Kenny, ponders gluttonous Abe from Albany, “lethal injection I’d be facing on the gurney, if there were just desserts for larceny, but here I salivate over counting shekels, watching the goyim fall for our blarney.”

Discuss.

Posted by R-news on Friday, January 13, 2012 at 11:54 PM in Humour,  That Question Again
Comments (3) | Tell-a-Friend

Intelligence vs. control of the money supply

A recent proposal has argued that nationalists should try to seek reproduction with higher IQ whites so that:

“They will naturally rise to the highest levels of society and victory will be inevitable. This is how the white race will be saved.”

The prospects can be empirically evaluated. Richard Lynn has extensively summarized IQ studies on Jews. Most studies are non-representative. A representative American study reported a Jewish (Ashkenazi) verbal IQ of 107.5. Two representative British studies have reported Jewish (Ashkenazi) IQs as 108.5 and 107.7 (verbal = 107.3, non-verbal = 108.0). The best reading of American and British Ashkenazi IQ is 110. The average white IQ in these regions is 100.

In the U.S., there are about 200 million whites and 6.5 million Jews. Assuming a standard deviation of 15 in both populations, we get the following.

As anyone can see, Jews haven’t achieved their spectacular success (e.g., control of the mainstream media, ZOG, etc.) as a result of IQ; they achieved it by acquiring control of the money supply. Nationalists are advised to target getting back control of the money supply instead of trying to increase IQ. I’m not against increasing IQ, but IQ just isn’t relevant to the matter.

Posted by R-news on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM in Anthropology,  European Nationalism,  Global Elitism,  IQ and Heredity,  Jewish Diaspora,  That Question Again,  White Nationalism
Comments (148) | Tell-a-Friend

Public Schools, Cash is Trash, and the New World Order

Continued...

Posted by Kievsky on Saturday, January 7, 2012 at 08:44 AM in
Comments (108) | Tell-a-Friend

A Nation Rejoices: Justice at Last!

Unless you live in an ice cave in ultima Thule the chances are very high that you will not have escaped the joyous post-Holiday tidings that (two of) the alleged perpetrators of the evil, racist 1993 murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence have finally been brought to book. Today at the Old Bailey Mr. Justice Treacy sentenced Gary Dobson (36) and David Norris (35) to detention ‘at Her Majesty’s pleasure’, stipulating that they should serve minimum sentences of at least 15 years and 14 years, respectively, before becoming eligible for consideration for parole.

Evil racists: Gary Dobson (l), David Norris

The purpose here is not to analyse the trial or the verdict, and certainly not to drum up sympathy for the accused who seem to be, putting it mildly, unsavoury characters who probably belong behind bars if not for this crime, then for their generally anti-social behaviour. That said, more than a few eyebrows have been raised at the level of effort expended by the Metropolitan Police in bringing this case to at least partial closure. According to an article in today’s Daily Mail, the unprecedented prosecution effort has cost more than £50 million, with police even going to the extreme of purchasing the house next door to one of the suspects, in order to perform bugging operations which one officer described as ‘pure James Bond’. A private laboratory was commissioned to perform an multi-million pound forensic analysis of physical evidence which had lain in police custody for 18 years, resulting in the new evidence which permitted prosecutors to request a new trial   As Acting Deputy Commissioner Cressida Dick, who has overseen the Lawrence probe since 2006, said:

‘It is an extraordinary inquiry. ‘When you put all different aspects together, it is clearly utterly unique. ‘We can’t think of another very large case which has run on and on, in the same way, over 18 years.’

It certainly eclipses by far any efforts made by the police to pursue and prosecute the members of the Asian gang who murdered Gavin Hopley in 2002. But then of course Gavin was white, as was Christopher Yates so, strictly speaking, they don’t really count.

Not Evil Racists

Stepping aside from the immediacy of the trial and verdict, it is important to consider the Lawrence case and its politically-charged aftermath in their larger impact upon society as a whole. The leader in today’s Telegraph provides a sobering, if incomplete, overview of what that has entailed:

... The Macpherson report would ultimately draw much wider lessons than those that might reasonably be learnt from a bungled police inquiry, and its effect was profound. Race relations laws were overhauled, double-jeopardy protections against retrials for the same crime were removed and the public sector was required to be re-educated in the ways of race awareness. Thousands of state bodies employing millions of people were given new statutory duties to deliver racial equality. Schools started to keep a tally of allegedly racist remarks uttered innocently by children as young as five and people found themselves denounced for harmless, if inappropriate, remarks. The development of this pernicious culture has been totally out of proportion to the problem.

The general response of the Great and Good to the outcome of the trial has been to pat themselves on the back in reflecting on what Jack Straw called today “a sea change” in British society brought about, per Straw, by the ‘terrible’ murder of Stephen as well as the (Macpherson) Inquiry, which he himself initiated. But, as other commentators have noted, there is still much more to do if racism is to be totally eradicated from British society and future ‘Stephens’ will be able to realise their legitimate aspirations, free from racial harassment and persecution. As a former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Herman Ouseley, notes in today’s Guardian,  the Lawrence verdict “... creates a new baseline in establishing standards of investigation and prosecution for all hate crimes.”

A casual observer might infer from all this that much of Britain still consists of ‘no-go zones’ into which members of ethnic minorities venture at their peril, areas still infested as Ouseley has it by “... Racist and fascist groups”, practising racial terrorism in the form of “abuse, threats, and petrol bombs and excrement through letterboxes or windows.” It was so bad, apparently, that “Many families – harassed on the streets, and their children abused at school – were afraid to go out alone.” Such commentary might lead the aforementioned observer to deduce that Britain seems like a very dangerous place to be if you are non-white, and if in search of a factual underpinning for this viewpoint, the observer will surely want to consult the official statistics on such matters. They will surely demonstrate, beyond any possible doubt, that non-whites are still disproportionately victimised by serious racial violence even now, almost twenty years after Stephen’s Lawrence’s death.

Won’t they? 

Continued...

Posted by Dan Dare on Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 09:25 PM in
Comments (32) | Tell-a-Friend

Government Cheese

Kievsky as guest blogger:

I’ve been waiting for a reason to use this as a blog post title, and this alternet article gave me a priceless quote illustrating exactly this truism.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 01:09 PM in
Comments (8) | Tell-a-Friend

On Ron Paul as controlled opposition and why he would be best for President of the United States

I’ve taken flak for describing Ron Paul as controlled opposition. Here I’ll discuss his stance on money. I was pointed to the following overview of Ron Paul on the money issue to correct my alleged misrepresentation of his stances.

Ron Paul argues against more regulation [on the part of the government] and pitches for a free market economy by saying that the Fed should not be given more power, whereas giving the Fed more power means less regulation by the government as the Federal Reserve banks are fully private; the more power the Fed has, the greater the influence of the “free market.”

Ron Paul addresses the housing bubble by saying that Congress and the Fed encouraged the housing industry... finally the bubble burst and “we” [government] try to [pursue stupid policies] such as stimulating the housing market, cash for clunkers.... as a result “we” have no confidence in the market economy.

Reality check: the housing bubble and its busting was caused by the bankers a.k.a. the “free market”:

Boom: generously give out loans, which are funded out of nothing, to earn interest off of nothing...

Laughing all the way to the bank: make money by selling debt that can’t be paid off to investors, make money by selling insurance against the probability of defaults, make money by gambling on the probability of defaults...

Bust: loan less and cause a recession; acquire houses for pennies on the dollar.

Another reality check: The only money created by the government comprises of coins. Stimulating the housing market and cash for clunkers is just the bankers getting the government and hence the people more under debt.

Continued...

Posted by J Richards on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 01:25 AM in Economics & Finance,  Libertarianism,  Political analysis,  U.S. Politics
Comments (80) | Tell-a-Friend

and so i challenge you

Posted by Søren Renner on Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 12:22 AM in
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

Vdare and counter-currents donations pitch

Ran into Vdare begging for donations… bizarre excuses offered.  The main one’s that the writers have families to feed and are being ostracized.  Don’t use their names!  A successful publication, The Economist, does this.  The software Vdare uses allows for custom fields, sophisticated tagging and running boolean operators on tags, facilitating arbitrary categorization and custom display of taxonomy and fields.  There’s no need for author names. 

Peter Brimelow argues for VDare’s credentials by noting that the SPLC labels it a hate group, failing to add that the credentials are of uselessness at best, controlled opposition at worst!  The SPLC pretends MR doesn’t exist.  Why?  Because many of our articles make them pee pee and poo poo… the Hell they’ll give publicity to the real deal!

Brimelow says they don’t endorse candidates, in the midst of a tacit endorsement of Ron Paul, long revealed as controlled opposition.

In a nutshell, the donations request has to be a scam.  A good way of understanding this is to look at the recent fundraising marathon at counter-currents.com.  Greg Johnson claimed a need for $25,000, for what?  The web hosting should be less than $150/yr.  Apparently he’s trying to make a living off of it.  He got this much, which makes no sense given the Alexa ranking [traffic], age [set-up mid-2010] and quality of articles unless the bulk of it came from Juden, the only logical candidate as Johnson’s doing a great job of pleasing them.  Vdare’s not to be outdone, and should have no logical reasons to beg for money, but the Juden derive perverse pleasure in milking moolah from the people they’re scamming [witness wikipedia begging for donations].  Beware of the scamsters.

Posted by R-news on Friday, December 30, 2011 at 01:17 PM in Blogs & Blogging
Comments (291) | Tell-a-Friend

Demography challenge

The number of whites stands at 500 million.  White women on average give birth to 1.4 children each.  Not all of these children are white, and the number of white children born per white woman on average is 1.2.  Very pessimistic assumptions, aren’t they?

Under the following assumptions, how long will it take to reduce the white population to 50 million, 10 million, 5 million and 1 million?  If the extinction point is reached at 500 white people, how many years will this take?  What can be inferred from this exercise?

At start, the age distributions are as follows, the birth and death rates remain constant throughout, only women between the ages of 20-40 give birth, and men and women are matched in numbers.

Age-Range | Percent | Death rate per 100k
0-20      |  20     |  300
20-40     |  40     |  150
40-60     |  25     |  500
60-plus   |  15     |  5000

Most answers in this excel sheet (if you can’t open it, install the free and open source open office or libre office suite).

Posted by R-news on Friday, December 30, 2011 at 08:07 AM in Demographics,  Psychology,  Race realism,  White Nationalism
Comments (22) | Tell-a-Friend

Numbers are of the Essence

MR regulars will have little difficulty in attributing a source to this aphorism, nor in recognising the context in which it was originally placed. We are talking of course about immigration into the UK, a topic never far from the headlines and one which was prominently featured again last month, following the release by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) of its latest statistics on Net Migration.

This article in the Daily Mail was typical, bemoaning the fact that net migration had again increased in the calendar year 2010, that is the final year in office of the Labour Government. This chart from the Mail illustrates the trend:

Like others, the Mail points to the pre-election proposal of the Conservatives, since (reluctantly) ratified by the Liberal wing of the coalition government, to reduce net migration from its present level of over 200,000 annually to some ‘tens of thousands’ (thus somewhere between 20,000 and 99,999, presumably).

There is widespread scepticism that a reduction on this scale is even feasible. Given that some components of the migrant stream, like asylum seekers and family ‘reunion’, are apparently ‘ring-fenced’ (off limits) for human-rights and other non-economic reasons, and others, like intra-company transfers, are fiercely protected by powerfully-vested economic interests, not to mention the fact that intra-EU migration is, by treaty, also off limits, it is difficult to see how the promised reduction is going to be achieved.

Nevertheless the government appears to be committed to the process at least, if not to a specific eventual outcome, as the recent imposition of an interim cap on employment visas for non-EU migrants seems to confirm. There are mutterings also about capping the number of student visas issued as well, although this will certainly be fiercely contested by the educational establishment which has come to rely upon the exorbitant fees paid by international students to finance many pet projects as well as maintaining the flow of decent claret for the dons’ refectory.

But all this chatter does not really address a key issue: what, exactly, is Net Migration? What does it measure, and is it a reliable indicator of the impact that continuing high levels of immigration are having upon the demographic (i.e. racial) makeup of the population? Commentary is particularly subdued on the latter, not even Migrationwatch UK nor its related organisation Balanced Migration dares to bring this matter into the public gaze, presumably hoping to stay on the right side of the Race Relations Industry and its familiars in the MSM.

It goes without saying that Majority Rights is unconstrained by consideration for such niceties, so it is time for us to take a closer look at Net Migration, and see what it actually entails.

Continued...

Posted by Dan Dare on Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 08:36 PM in
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

Fashion challenge

This is a common scene in the contemporary fashion world.  The civil rights police has been complaining of the horrid lack of diversity, but hasn’t made much headway, in sharp contrast to its victories elsewhere.  What gives? 

Posted by R-news on Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 06:06 PM in Media
Comments (18) | Tell-a-Friend

Tony Lecomber on the future of nationalism in Britain

Below the fold I am reproducing Tony Lecomber’s interesting and exhaustive overview of British nationalism’s past and clouded future, with a rather confused recommendation for a new party at the end.  It makes a number of good points.  English, not British, nationalism, Tony says, is the wave of the future.  That’s true, and certain, of course, if Alex Salmond wins his referendum on Scottish independence in three years time.  Tony then speculates that as such a victory would deprive the Labour Party of seventy Scottish MPs at Westminster and deliver power to the Tories in perpetuity in the remains of the UK, indiscipline on the right must, in time, set in.  Such indiscipline he sees as a precondition for the rise of nationalism in England.  Perhaps, but nationalism has to make its own future, and can’t rely on charity from its political foes.

Overall, Tony’s message is bleak.  The sense of embattlement on every front is very palpable, culminating in the despairing admission that “the multiracial state is here to stay”.  Well, if that is the case, what’s the point of nationalism?  To slow down our genetic dissolution and demographic replacement to a speed white people won’t find quite so unsettling?  To delay our minoritisation by one generation?  In such an admission is the false assumption that:

(a) the English people think it moral and right for Africans and Asians to continue living in England and to continue displacing, replacing and deracinating them, and will vote for that if ever the issue is forced to the front of electoral debate,

(b) anything and everything must be thrown overboard by nationalists to escape being labelled as “racist”.

This mindset is surely the product of a lifetime of political failure allied to a paucity of creative thinking - not least on the wider political issues, particularly economics, but also on the great, undergirding question of the war of discourse.

Obviously, Tony is right that, short of the state jailing Nick Griffin (and why would it do that), political nationalism must find itself a new vehicle.  He is right about the risks.  I don’t think he is right to be so focussed on the party question.  No nationalist party can effect the vast change in the English public’s values and attitudes necessary for the embrace of such a revolutionary politics.  But perhaps that is work for other kinds of political animal.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, December 26, 2011 at 07:45 AM in British Politics
Comments (226) | Tell-a-Friend

A Christmas & New Year message from Papa

Readers who have followed or been involved in the recent travails of British nationalism will know that, while the “parallel party structure” appears to be moving forward within the BNP, there are indications that the jump to a new party is not far away:

A meeting was held on the 22nd. October, 2011 and attended by over 200 delegates. Please see picture below. The meeting voted to form a New Party by orgainising groups throughout the UK, such as The Brent Group, to recruit members and build a strong membership with which to launch the New Party.

Andrew Moffat together with Arthur Kemp, have been working behind the scenes preparing the foundations for the New Party. The bank account has been completed, a highly complicated and paperwork intensive operation. The Party Name, drawn from members suggestions, have been investigated. Many suggestions, including my own, have previously been registered. We could not launch the Party of course and have a legal problem on our hands over the name. A final shortlist of names will be published and the members will decide the name by democratic simple majority vote.

Such a move, of course, is high in risk.  Here’s someone for whom I have a lot of time explaining why to readers of British Democracy Forum:

It is pointless launching a new political party at this time, although I can see why supporters of Andrew Brons would want to have a replacement to campaign for his re-election when the European elections come round again.

It is pointless for the following reasons;

1. Getting either Andrew Brons and/or Nick Griffin re-elected to the European Parliament will provide no appreciable benefit for British Nationalism as a whole, unless of course the MEPs when re-elected, eschew the work they currently undertake within the European Parliament and instead use the large salaries and funding that they have to finance campaigning and electioneering here in the UK.

The European Parliament is a vast talking shop, largely composed of people who care not one jot what the two BNP MEPs have to say and those two MEPs have been completely ineffectual during their current tenure and will almost certainly continue to be completely ineffectual if re-elected.

2. Thanks to the mis-management of the BNP it it now greatly reduced in terms of membership numbers and more crucially, in terms of capable activists. It is now menaced by a number of new and newly revived rival nationalist parties, all of which have been swelled in terms of their strength by the exodus of disillusioned activists from the BNP. British Nationalism is now composed of several micro-parties (including the BNP, which has now been reduced to micro-party status) and when further elections come along, we will see them fighting against each other and splitting the nationalist vote in every ward or constituency where there is any sizeable amount of nationalist support. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, no British Nationalist party will get any candidates elected and it is therefore futile to launch another new political party at this time.

3. While nationalist policies remain popular with the public, this popularity rarely translates into votes at election time, and this is because, as a movement, we have no resources and no infrastructure of any significance. Therefore, even with a clear run and no nationalist infighting, in the best wards and constituencies in this country, we have only ever managed to get an insignificantly small number of candidates elected, and now under a sustained barrage of attacks from the establishment, virtually everything we formerly gained under the BNP banner is being lost.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 07:50 PM in Activism
Comments (39) | Tell-a-Friend