Hungary - Zsolt Bayer - Artificial, Contrived Migratory Movement | Prof Noel Ignatiev - Abolish White Race - Marxist Indoctrination in American Academia

ꕤ Video SOURCE as marked HUNGARY Zsolt Bayer Artificial, Contrived Migratory Movement  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RPMa3Qgx6k Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mSASrzCuBw ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. SOURCE http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/sep/4/20020904-084657-6385r/ Harvard professor argues for 'abolishing' white race By - The Washington Times - Wednesday, September 4, 2002 Noel Ignatiev, a founder of a journal called Race Traitor and a fellow at Harvard's W.E.B. DuBois Institute, a leading black-studies department, argues in the current issue of Harvard Magazine that "abolishing the white race" is "so desirable that some may find it hard to believe" that anyone other than "committed white supremacists" would oppose it. In excerpts appearing this week in newspapers nationwide, Mr. Ignatiev, who is white, writes that "every group within white America," including "labor unionists, ethnic groups, college students, schoolteachers, taxpayers and white women" has at one time or another "advanced its particular and narrowly defined interests at the expense of black people as a race." Mr. Ignatiev pledges in the essay that his journal, Race Traitor, intends to "keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed not 'deconstructed' but destroyed." His colleagues at Harvard seem not to take his proposal entirely seriously. Others cite the article as an example of Harvard's institutional racism. Sara Stillman, assistant to the publisher of Harvard Magazine, says there's clearly some "misunderstanding" about what Mr. Ignatiev means by the inflammatory language. Asked in a 1997 interview with the New York Times if he hates his own white skin, Mr. Ignatiev said, "No, but I want to abolish the privileges." "The white race is like a private club based on one huge assumption that all those who look white, are, whatever their complaints or reservations, fundamentally loyal to the race. We want to dissolve that club, to explode it," he said. Christopher Reed, executive editor of Harvard Magazine, defended what Mr. Ignatiev wrote in the September-October issue. "He's arguing against the mind-set and attitude that automatically grants privileges to white people he wants more fairness," Mr. Reed said in a statement. The university's public affairs office said it had no comment. The article already has stirred anger among some conservatives, who see the article as typical of the liberal climate in academia. "Suppose Frontpagemagazine.com ran a headline 'Abolish the Black Race'?" asks David Horowitz on his magazine's Web site. "What do you think the reaction would be? But at Harvard, where demonizing whites is merely the standard curriculum, an article like this can appear in a glossy magazine whose cover story is 'Whither the Art Museum?' "Race hatred, if directed against white people, is just part of the progressive culture," says Mr. Horowitz, a radical-turned-conservative and author of "Civil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery." Mr. Ignatiev, a one-time steelworker and Marxist activist who earned a doctorate at Harvard, could not be reached for comment. But he writes about what he believes at the Web site of Race Traitor, whose motto is: "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity." "The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in U.S. society," the journal's statement of purpose says. "The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse." Among the "privileges" of being white, according to Race Traitor, are not being followed by security in stores, not being harassed by police, having easier access to better schools, jobs and housing, and not being asked whether skin color or affirmative action got you a job. In the essay in Harvard Magazine, Mr. Ignatiev says he always expected "bewilderment" at his views from "people who still think of race as biology." "We frequently get letters accusing us of being 'racists' just like the KKK, and have even been called a 'hate group.'" he wrote. Mr. Ignatiev attempts to clarify how he could be seeking to abolish the white race without calling for genocide. "Our standard response is to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc." Abolition of a monarchy has often been marked by killing the monarch and sometimes his family members; for example, England in 1649, France in 1792, Russia in 1917 and Iraq in 1958. Even those nations that have abolished kings or emperors without regicide generally have forced the monarch into exile. Mr. Ignatiev grew up in a Philadelphia family that he says was devoid of racial bias. As a child, he swam at a free community pool, where he was the only white patron. He says his parents refused to pay a $1 fee that was designed to keep other public pools all-white. Mr. Ignatiev's parents, Jewish immigrants from Russia, were not college educated, but he attended the University of Pennsylvania, dropping out after three years. He worked in a Chicago steel mill and in factories that made farm equipment and electrical parts for two decades. At the steel mill, he helped organize strikes and protests by the predominantly black work force. He was laid off from the steel mill in 1984, a year after he was arrested on charges of throwing a paint bomb at a strike-breaker's car. He set up Marxist discussion groups in the early 1980s. In 1985, Mr. Ignatiev was accepted to the Harvard Graduate School of Education without an undergraduate degree. After earning his master's, he joined the Harvard faculty as a lecturer and worked toward a doctorate in U.S. history. His dissertation was his book, "How the Irish Became White." Mr. Ignatiev said the book told how Irish immigrants came to the United States and became "oppressors" by emulating American whites. For Education & Comment Purposes SOURCE http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/sep/4/20020904-084657-6385r/ ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Engineered Migration As Coercive Instrument http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/migration/pubs/rrwp/12_engineered.html Coercive Engineered Migration  http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/11515/SI_V9_I1_2010_Greenhill_116.pdf?sequence=1 Above are interesting articles for those interested in mass migratory movement and politics. ꕤ

Transcript - 'Mosque in Athens' Debate (2012)

ꕤ Transcript SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNo59pQcyKE 'Mosque in Athens' Debate  27 Nov 2012 Douglas Murray British writer, journalist and commentator atheist ('cultural Christian', formerly Anglican) Douglas Murray's comments re Islamic extremism in Netherlands mean that he has to have a police guard when travelling there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Murray_%28author%29 TRANSCRIPT [for quotations, confirm audio] 25:39 Douglas Murray There, that's better.  Apologies for not being able to speak Greek and for not being able to work the microphone. It's very nice to be in Athens. I want to open by thanking the organisers for inviting me, for inviting our side, particularly thank, obviously, Intelligence Squared and also the British Council. I should also say at the outset, I also feel rather sorry for our opponents tonight, who have been appallingly set up, clearly, by the motion that we have been given. The motion that we are debating tonight is not whether or not the mosque should be built, the motion is that only good can come from building it. And it seems to me, that the only people who could possibly believe that are people who are extraordinarily naive, people who are extraordinarily ignorant, or something altogether worse. Now, I'm not a cultural relativist. I don't believe that all civilisations are equal.  I don't believe all cultures are equal.   That doesn't mean I don't believe we can't all get along. But I don't believe that we have to pretend, among other things, in debating things like this evening's motion, that we do not ourselves in Europe have a history that we would wish to defend, a culture we might wish to be proud of and to protect, and even to make value judgements about other ideas, other religions, other cultures. Now, it's my belief that Europe is based on the fundamental principles of Judeo-Christian civilisation and of Greek culture, and from this wonderful symbiosis of values, the history of Europe, the culture of Europe, has emerged. I believe, furthermore, that states have the right to decide, to at least have a say, in their own future; that waves of illegal immigration do not mean that cultures which have had such immigration immediately have to concede to the incomers. It's also, I should stress at the outset, is an important debate to have, because there is a problem that Europe is experiencing with Islam.  And I think we have to tackle this head-on. Islam is a very, very complex thing. Let nobody say that we on this side are essentialising Muslims, or generalising about Muslims, or aren't aware of the huge variety of practices and beliefs within Islam. But to create a massive centre at public expense in Athens at this moment should at least be questioned. We should at least be able to address whether or not it would seem to us to be like a good idea. Let me give you an example -- from my own country, from Great Britain -- of this kind of thing going on, because in Britain we have many mosques, many Muslim organisations are funded by the government, and I wanted to give one example of the sort of thing which the Athens mosque might yet become on this benevolent idea that if the government is behind it, only good can come from it. There's a mosque in London called East London Mosque.  The London Muslim Centre is attached to it. It has received a lot of public funding.  It's routinely hosting all sorts of great dignitaries, from the British political class -- and outside. The American Ambassador in London recently graced it with a visit.  The shadow Justice Minister recently graced it with a visit.  The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, graced it with a visit.  Even Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, is a regular. There's a veritable drive time at this mosque.  It's hard to get to it for the number of dignitaries cars that are forever drawing up outside. But is it the case that despite all of these grand official benedictions, it is a place from only which good can come? No.  Not at all. You just have to look at the type of people who preach there. I'm just looking over the last few years. Recently, Sheikh Khalid Yasin a popular preacher, who also preaches the virtues of public beheading, saying that it would be a grand thing to have in Britain because it would teach people not to murder if they saw heads rolling down the streets. It's hosted Sheikh  Al-Sudais, who believes that Jews should be annihilated. It's hosted Yasir Khadi, who's a holocaust denier. It's hosted among others, Bilal Philips, who is a proponent of suicide bombing. And it's also, perhaps most famously, hosted Anwar al-Awlaki, a man who is currently on the kill or capture list of that notorious hawk, President Obama. Just earlier today in London, a young man called Rajib Karim, was convicted of an attempt to bring down airlines -- blow up airline planes -- with the assistance of that man, Anwar al-Awlaki. So, it's clearly not the case that just because officialdom is involved that mosques are centres of wonder, loveliness and peacefulness, a sort of Anglican Church meets the Green movement. [audience laughter] It's also, I think worth noting, one or two of the oddities of Islam internationally at the moment and particularly in this regard. Islam, when it is in a minority, is extremely good at talking about tolerance. In a minority, Islam loves to talk about the tolerance that people must show towards the minorities. One of the things, however, if you look around the world -- and I'm sure I don't need to tell you this -- is that whenever Islam is in the majority, minority rights are nowhere to be seen. It's a one-directional talk of minority rights. When Islam is in a minority, it talks of the importance of human rights. When it is in a majority, those human rights -- including the most basic human rights, like the rights of women to be considered equal beings -- are thrown right out the window. And I think we also have to bear in mind that there is a problem in the world today of the direction in which organised Islam across the globe is growing. I think that there are many problems in the religion, as in most religions. Most religions have problems of some type to get over. But in Islam there is a particular problem of a magnetic literalism, which keeps on drawing people back to the violent tenets of the faith. You'd better hope, ladies and gentlemen, that your mosque here is a first internationally and that nobody with any unpleasant statements -- any unpleasant ideas -- could possibly come to it. You'd better hope that it's not like the US, for instance, where the Muslim Brotherhood movement, for instance, which Tariq's grandfather founded, recently was unearthed as saying that the job of Muslims was to make a civilisation conquest in the West. You'd better hope, ladies and gentlemen, that nobody would agree with, for instance, with Prime Minister Erodogan -- not a minority, not an unimportant figure -- when he says the mosques are our barracks, the domes are helmets, the minarets are bayonets and the faithful are soldiers. And, finally, you'd better hope that one of the most influential men today in Islamic terms, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi wouldn't have anything to get near this mosque -- any excuse to get near it -- because he said just recently in a fatwa on the signs of victory of Islam:      It means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and a victor, after having been expelled from it twice.  Once from the south from Andalusia and a second time from the east, when it knocked several times on the doors of Athens. Ladies and gentlemen, you don't have to be naives and you don't have to be ignorant to notice that knock is happening again, and you don't have to open the door to it. Thank you. [applause] 34:35 ___________________________________ Khalid Yasin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Yasin Sheikh  Al-Sudais https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Al-Sudais Anwar al-Awlaki (al-Qaeda), Yemen cause of death:  Hellfire missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Rajib Karim - British Airways terrorist plot http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/28/british-airways-bomb-guilty-karim Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips  - Jamaican-born Canadian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Philips Said Ramadan Egyptian  - major figure Muslim Brotherhood {son-in-law of Muslim Brotherhood's founder, Hassan al-Banna} {father of Tariq Ramadan, prominent Egyptian-Swiss academic / Prof. Contemporary Islamic Studies} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Said_Ramadan Tariq Ramadan prominent Egyptian-Swiss academic Prof. Contemporary Islamic Studies Oxford lecturer Islamic Studies {MA in Philosophy & French literature / PhD in Arabic and Islamic studies} advisor to the EU on religious issues sought for advice by EU on commission on "Islam and Secularism" 2005 - UK government task force European Muslim Network - founder & President (Brussels-based think-tank that gathers European Muslim intellectuals and activists) Govt Prohibition List 2009 - persona non grata in Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria. Persona non grata in Israel. prolific writer authored over 30 books, mainly in French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of Turkey since 2003 "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..." 1998 conviction & minor jail-term for inciting religious hatred. [Isam-Watch] *Switzerland banned minarets in 30 November 2009 referendum, claiming that it's a symbol of Islam's political domination.  [Isam-Watch] Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi Egyptian Islamic theologian radical Muslim Brotherhood ideologue based in Qatar http://archive.adl.org/nr/exeres/788c5421-70e3-4e4d-bff4-9be14e4a2e58,db7611a2-02cd-43af-8147-649e26813571,frameless.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- ꕤ

Video - Melanie Phillips Islam in Europe

ꕤ Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH6QO9MfaH4 Melanie Phillips Islam in Europe 13 Jul 2011 Rough Summary {recommend:  check against audio} Pew Poll Britain least Islamophobic of all European nations that were studied & Britain nevertheless where Muslims hated their host country the most. Real religion has become individualism.  Nonetheless, a great desire for spirituality. Spirituality without the church, without organised religion & moral codes. Morality has been privatised. What's right for me, is the basis for moral and cultural relativism. Relativism involves no judgement to be permitted of people's lifestyles; the development of multiculturalism and victim culture, based on the doctrine that the values of the majority by definition are illegitimate, because they exclude the minorities. Under the doctrine of relativism, there is no objective truth; everything is a matter of opinion, because my values are the equal of your values and therefore it is merely my opinion versus your opinion. Under the doctrine of relativism, there is no objectivity; there is no truth. This has given rise to a moral and social anarchy, in which Britain is rapidly retreating to a pre-modern age of irrationality. Having disaggregated [divided] truth, we are no longer able to use the reason that bases itself on truth. Yet we make a fetish of reason. It is in the name of reason -- scientific reason, also known as empiricism -- we have exiled religion and declared that god is dead because the biblical stories are merely primitive superstition, as they don't correspond to the dictates of reason as defined by empiricism. Believe in a wide range of crap. Complete disintegration of rationality, belief, cultural identity, morality, spirituality and religion has created a cultural vacuum. Britain, Islamists filling the vacuum by: 1)  terrorising population through terror; 2)  converting the most vulnerable:  criminals, mentally disturbed, young who look for meaning beyond materialism.  3) exploiting victim culture, which has arisen out of doctrine of multiculturalism to claim that in the interests of 'equality' they must have preferential treatment in the public square, backed up by the threat of terrorism.  Intellectual elite in Britain has fallen for this hook, line & sinker, unlike the public, who most certainly have not.  But our intellectual, political and security establishment in large measure is saying, instead of Muslims in Britain being treated on the principles of equality like any other minority, they have allowed and, indeed, condoned and encouraged, the steady encroachment of Islam into the public sphere. So Britain now has earnest discussions by UK's most senior lawyers of the extent to which Islamic law can and should be permitted to encroach into the field of the English common law, although the principles of Islamic law are inimical to the English law and to the canons of Western society and British society. Archbishop of Canterbury stated:  entirely proper for British Muslims to have recourse to sharia family law alongside English common law. He was somewhat surprised by the explosive reaction he provoked. What he was saying we should have no fear of as a hypothetical enticement for the future was already happening, in spades. In Britain, there's a steady development of Muslim enclaves which are governed informally by parallel jurisdiction of sharia law, a kind of embryonic state within a state. Britain already turns an official blind eye to such things as cousin marriage, genital mutilation of women, honour violence, and polygamy. Indeed, Britain is now, as a state, encouraging and condoning polygamy, because Britain is now giving welfare benefits to the multiple wives of Muslim men. Britain's Prime Minister has said that Britain should become the global centre of sharia finance. What is not understood, is that this will institutionalise Islamism in Britain. It has come as a shock for some of Britain’s banks to find that on their sharia boards advising them about their sharia finance arrangements, sit those who are not wholly unassociated with Islamic terrorism and with al-Qaeda. Sharia, as understood by Melanie Phillips, does not prohibit the charging of interest.  Sharia merely prohibits exorbitant rates of interest. Sharia loans will entail the Islamisation of borrowers, Phillips states. British establishment refuses to see all of this and refuses to accept that religion is at the heart of the problem, and refuses to accept that what Britain is facing is an Islamic jihad. British establishment has instead accepted the Muslims' own assertion that what we are facing in terms of terror is nothing whatsoever to do with religion and if anyone says that Islam is a religion of violence, they will kill them. British establishment thinks that by seeking to accommodate this Muslim narrative of encroachment into the public sphere, they will draw the Muslim sting and get the Muslim community on-side, they will draw the sting of anger against Britain, they will turn jihadists into model citizens, and they will separate the community from al-Qaeda. British establishment think that the Islamic religion in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood is an antidote to al-Qaeda -- an antidote to terror.  They think the Muslim Brotherhood is a counter-radicalisation movement. As a result, they are using the Muslim Brotherhood and bringing it into the heart of British establishment, because they fail to understand that what Britain is facing is a pincer movement of Islamism being used against British society, not just through terrorism but also through cultural attack. Britain is seeing Leninist Islamism in the form of al-Qaeda, as well as Gramscian Islamism in the form of Tariq Ramadan and cultural Muslim Brotherhood onslaught, which corresponds to and is using the Gramscian onslaught on the basic tenets of Western civilisation through such things as the capture of the intelligentsia, the capture of the universities, the capture of the establishment, the capture of the civil service, the destruction of such things as family and nation, and substitution of the values of the excluded and transgressive for the values of the normal. That is the Gramscian project.  It has succeeded in Britain absolutely to the letter.  And the Islamists are coming along and Islamising Gramsci.  That's what Britain has. The government does not see this, so Britain now has Muslim Brotherhood people at the centre of government, advising government on how to combat Islamist extremism. Melanie Phillips has sat in defence establishment seminars, where she has seen hard-bitten people from the security establishment sitting lapping up Islamits bamboozling them with a sanitised and highly selective version of Islam. Melanie Phillips states that she knows that the British police are giving sensitive security information to Muslim extremists who are on their liaison groups with the community, which are not vetted in case they upset the Muslim community and they are asking permission of these people before they conduct raids. What this is doing is undermining the true moderate Muslims in Britain, of whom there are certainly some, but not by any means as many as is said to be, but they do exist. Cardinal Pell painted a benign and optimistic picture of relations between the non-Muslim and Muslim minority in Australia. Melanie Phillips makes a couple of points, which Pell did not fully acknowledge: 1.  Australia has very few Muslims compared to Britain and what there is in Europe, and that of course makes a considerable difference. 2.  Key thing about Australia is that this relatively happy state of affairs follows the incredibly hard line taken by John Howard and other ministers in that government, who basically said in terms, repeatedly:  this is the line we are drawing, we are a European Western society, you live here on our terms, or else you go -- and by the way, we are not letting a lot of you in and like it or lump it, these are our terms.  This is our society, this is our culture, you are welcome to take part in it, but on our terms. Melanie Phillips states, this is what has to happen.  Britain has to draw the cultural line in the sand. "The British Muslims say to us, we want equality.  We are a minority, we want equality.  And the establishment, because its so bamboozled by multiculturalism, thinks that equality means equality of the minorities with the majority.  But it doesn't.  The deal since the establishment has been that the majority upholds its own society -- and in the case of Britain and the West, tenets of liberalism, of tolerance of the disconnect between religion and the public square -- and that all minorities are treated the same *as each other* within that. In other words, they are all free and welcome to practise communities of faith, but where those faiths may conflict with the dominant values of the majority, those values must give way. ... In terms of the public sphere, it's ours:  you do not colonise it. So not one inch will we give to sharia, because we give it to no other minority." Britain has gone hell for leather in the opposite direction and that is why Britain is the most tolerant nation in Europe towards its Muslim minority, and it is the most hated by that minority. Antonio Gramsci https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci Further Video Melanie Phillips on the threat of radical Islam 11 Mar 2015 https://youtu.be/S7qOemB2l9E?t=1680 Terrifying conclusion. Hard to weigh up how seriously to take Melanie Phillips, as she is very bound up in defending Israel -- ie Israel can do no wrong -- & it sounds like the US can't do wrong either (eg 2007 videos I just looked at). That could be unimportant, but it could also be a significant thing. The threat is probably real (but not necessarily for the reasons she thinks).  The rest I don't buy. Israel never gets bad press, but from the way this lady's talking in the videos I've seen, you'd think the press was crucifying Israel. Israel is always treated as an exception:  Tzipi Livni arrest warrant ignored; over 120,000 signature petition to arrest Netanyahu not discussed in UK parliament, contrary to own rules;  the "Israel has a right to defend itself" constant refrain, as Israel was pounding Gaza (which is like an open prison); the massive amount of aid Israel receives from the US; the military aid Israel received from Germany; the considerable amount of kowtowing to Israel and supporters of Israel that the West seems to do, are just some of the things that come to mind. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- ꕤ