This is a particularly interesting article on the end of the Bilderberg era in light of some of the rumors that are supposedly coming out of the most recent Bilderberg meeting. And notice how it all just keeps going back to ((((((Leon Trotsky)))))):
The beginning of the end of the Bilderberg/((((((Soros)))))) vision is in sight. The Old Order will cling on, even to the last of its fingernails. The Bilderberg vision is the notion of multi-cultural, international cosmopolitanism that surpasses old-time nationalism; heralding the end of frontiers; and leading toward a US-led, ‘technocratic’, global economic and political governance. Its roots lie with figures such as James Burnham, an anti-Stalin, former Trotskyite, who, writing as early as 1941, advocated for the levers of financial and economic power being placedin the hands of a management class: an élite – which alone would be capable of running the contemporary state – thanks to this élite’s market and financial technical nous. It was, bluntly, a call for an expert, technocratic oligarchy.
Burnham renounced his allegiance to ((((((Trotsky)))))) and ((((((Marxism)))))), in all its forms in 1940, but he would take the tactics and strategies for infiltration and subversion, (learned as a member of ((((((Leon Trotsky))))))’s inner circle) with him, and would elevate the Trotskyist management of ‘identity politics’ to become the fragmentation ‘device’ primed to explode national culture onto a new stage, in the Western sphere. His 1941 book, “The Managerial Revolution,” caught the attention of Frank Wisner, subsequently, a legendary CIA figure, who saw in the works of Burnham and his colleague a fellow Trotskyite, ((((((Sidney Hook)))))), the prospect of mounting an effective alliance of former Trotskyites against Stalinism.
But, additionally, Wisner perceived its merits as the blueprint for a CIA-led, pseudo-liberal, US-led global order. (‘Pseudo’, because, as Burnham articulated clearly, in The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom, his version of freedom meant anything but intellectual freedom or those freedoms defined by America’s Constitution. “What it really meant was conformity and submission”).
In short, (as Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth ((((((Gould)))))) have noted), “by 1947, James Burnham’s transformation from Communist radical, to New World Order American conservative was complete. His Struggle for the World, [converted into a memo for the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS, the forerunner of CIA)], had done a ‘French Turn’ on ((((((Trotsky))))))’s permanent Communist revolution, and turned it into a permanent battle plan for a global American empire. All that was needed to complete Burnham’s dialectic was a permanent enemy, and that would require a sophisticated psychological campaign to keep the hatred of Russia alive, “for generations”.
What has this to do with us today? A ‘Burnham Landscape’ of apparently, ‘centrist’ European political parties, apparently independent think-tanks, institutions, and NATO structures, was seeded by CIA – in the post war era of anti-Sovietism – across Europe, and the Middle East – as part of Burnham’s ‘battle plan’ for a US-led, global ‘order’. It is precisely this élite: i.e. Burnham’s oligarchic technocracy, that is facing political push-back today to the point at which the Liberal Order feels that it is struggling for its very survival against “the enemy in the White House”, as the editor of Spiegel Online has termed President Trump.
“Burnham renounced his allegiance to ((((((Trotsky)))))) and ((((((Marxism)))))), in all its forms in 1940.”
Sure he did. The Scarlet Pill, redder than red, is to grasp the fact that the Trotskyite communists, the World Revolutionaries, the Neoliberal world order, the New World Order, Bilderberg, the neoconservatives, the Never Trumpers, NATO, the European Unionists, and the Silicon Valley technocracy are all different aspects of the same thing. And their latest vision for global empire has observably failed, and failed faster and more conclusively than anyone would have imagined.
It will be very interesting to learn if the elite can learn from its failures or not. There have been rumors floating around that the European migration is to be reversed for fear that the whole thing will come crashing down amidst a series of large-scale civil wars. Maybe saner minds have prevailed, maybe the God-Emperor is behind it, or maybe it’s just fake news.
Rewriting the story of humanity’s origins: Fossil records suggest our ancestors evolved right across Africa and not just in one region
Experts found humans were not fully formed when they spread across the world
Primitive skulls and bones of homo sapiens do not show a linear progression
Instead the development is much more patchy from primitive to modern
It took hundreds of thousands of years before all humans began to look as we do
A new study says the fossil record does not support humans being fully formed when they spread across the world. Left: African skull from around 300,000 years ago Right: Skull from the Levant dating from around 95,000 years ago
Primitive skulls and bones of homo sapiens do not show a linear progression from primitive to modern.
Instead the development is much more patchy – showing that it took hundreds of thousands of years before all humans began to look as we do today.
Studies of the DNA of modern day Africans – the most genetically diverse continent on Earth – paints a similar picture.
It shows human populations across the continent are so different they must have been separated for huge chunks of time.
Scientists now suggest there must have been, multiple areas where different groups of humans developed different physical features.
These early bands of early humans then interbred over millennia. Only then did modern humans as we know them develop.
The fossil record suggests early homo sapiens were a patchwork quilt of different groups.
Dr Eleanor Scerri, an archaeologist at Oxford University, who led the international research, told The Guardian: ‘This single origin, single population view has stuck in people’s mind … but the way we’ve been thinking about it is too simplistic.’
The spread of humans led to local adaptation and development of unique primitive technologies. This image shows Middle Stone Age cultural artefacts from northern and southern Africa
Modern humans have small, slender faces, large round braincases, and chins.
If these features only evolved in one group of humans, we might expect to see a series of skulls going from larger to smaller faces, and gradually bigger, rounder braincases.
The fossil picture is much more complicated.
For example, skulls dating to 300,000 years ago found at Jebel Irhoud in Morocco – have small faces like modern humans.
But instead of a spherical braincase, theirs is long and elongated.
Meanwhile early human fossils dating more recently to 160,000 years ago – at Herto in Ethiopia – had big ‘robust’ faces – unlike us – but with ‘globular’ braincases like ours.
Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum and Dr Scerri have put forward the case in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
The authors said early humans were largely kept apart by a combination of diverse habitats and shifting environmental boundaries, such as forests and deserts.
Many of the most inhospitable regions in Africa today, such as the Sahara, were once wet and green, with interwoven networks of lakes and rivers, and abundant wildlife.
Designers used the fossils to recreate what they think the first Homo sapiens across Africa looked like 300,000 years ago. But the new research suggests early humans had a huge variation in the sizes and shapes of their heads
Similarly, some tropical regions that are humid and green today were once arid.
The shifting nature of these habitable zones meant human populations would have gone through many cycles of isolation.
This led to local adaptation and the development of unique primitive technologies – stone tools – and genetic makeup.
Professor Stringer pioneered the idea one big human population developed in Africa and spread worldwide – but now concedes this does not fit the facts.
He said when we look at human bones over the last 300,000 years ‘we see a complex mix of archaic and modern features in different places and at different times.
‘We do see a continental-wide trend towards the modern human form, but some archaic features are present until remarkably recently.’
When it comes to the development of stone tools, the pattern is also mixed.
Sometimes sophisticated tools appear further back in the fossil record, while cruder ones appear more recently – suggesting innovations occurred at different spots on the map at different times.
Prof Chris Stringer added: ‘Although I am one of the researchers who originally helped to develop the view that our species, Homo sapiens, had originated in Africa, I have increasingly come to the realisation that our African origin was a complex process.
‘The great diversity of African fossils between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago suggests that multiple lineages existed on the African continent at that time.’
This artist’s impression shows the patchwork of diverse fossils, artefacts and environments across Africa indicate that our species emerged from the interactions between a set of interlinked populations living across the continent, whose connectivity changed through time
Dr Scerri, said the stone tools discovered across Africa also don’t show a clear progression from crude to sophisticated.
She added that while there ‘is a continental-wide trend’ to greater sophistication over time, she said: ‘this ‘modernization’ clearly doesn’t originate in one region or occur at one time period.’
Professor Mark Thomas said the genetic patterns found in modern day Africans also support the idea.
He said: ‘It is difficult to reconcile the genetic patterns we see in living Africans, and in the DNA extracted from the bones of Africans who lived over the last 10,000 years, with there being one ancestral human population.’
Dr Scerri said: ‘The evolution of human populations in Africa was multi-regional. Our ancestry was multi-ethnic. And the evolution of our material culture was, well, multi-cultural.’
When it comes to the origins of our species, Homo sapiens, most scholars have accepted that we originated in Africa around 300,000 years ago, likely from a single population.
However, research published in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution has challenged this view, suggesting that our ancestors were scattered across the entire African continent and did not stem from a specific region.
This fractured evolution meant that our species was both physically and culturally diverse right from the very beginning, according to an interdisciplinary group of researchers led by Eleanor Scerri, an archaeologist from the University of Oxford and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
For the study, the team combined approaches from various disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology and genetics, in addition to reconstructing Africa’s past climate, to build a picture of how modern humans have evolved over the last 300,000 years.
They found that not only were Homo sapiens scattered across Africa when we emerged as a species, but these populations were also largely kept apart due to a combination of physical barriers, such as forests and deserts, leading to diversification.
However, these environments often shifted over time, spurring migrations which created some contact opportunities. This may have meant that populations could have gone through cycles of cultural and genetic mixing before becoming isolated again.
This new model of human evolution better explains the available genetic, fossil and archaeological evidence, the researchers said.
For example, this model can explain why human bone fossils from the last 300,000 years vary significantly, with a mix of archaic and modern features appearing in different places and at different times.
“In the fossil record, we see a mosaic-like, continental-wide trend toward the modern human form, and the fact that these features appear at different places at different times tells us that these populations were not well connected,” Scerri, said in a statement.
The archaeological evidence also lends weight to the new hypothesis.
“Stone tools and other artifacts—usually referred to as material culture—have remarkably clustered distributions in space and through time,” Scerri said. “While there is a continental-wide trend toward more sophisticated material culture, this ‘modernization’ clearly doesn’t originate in one region or occur at one time period.”
Evolutionary changes are seen between the skull bones of two different Homo sapiens. New findings suggest that modern humans evolved in populations that were scattered across the African continent. Philipp Gunz, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Evolutionary changes are seen between the skull bones of two different Homo sapiens. New findings suggest that modern humans evolved in populations that were scattered across the African continent. Philipp Gunz, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Finally, the team’s analysis of the available genetic data indicates that the single origin model is insufficient, according to Mark Thomas, a geneticist from University College London and co-author of the study.
“It is difficult to reconcile the genetic patterns we see in living Africans, and in the DNA extracted from the bones of Africans who lived over the last 10,000 years, with there being one ancestral human population,” he said. “We see indications of reduced connectivity very deep in the past, some very old genetic lineages, and levels of overall diversity that a single population would struggle to maintain.”
The new research highlights how the evolution of modern humans in Africa was a multiregional, multiethnic and multicultural phenomenon, Scerri concluded.
A homo sapiens skull on display at the Sirindhorn Museum of Nature and Science in Thailand. Credit: Shutterstock
Early Humans Probably Didn’t Evolve from a Single Population in Africa
By Yasemin Saplakoglu, Staff Writer |
Homo sapiens are incredibly diverse — we live in wildly different societies, follow different rules and love and fear different gods.
Despite that awesome diversity, mounting evidence suggests the first humans were even more different from one another than we are today.
In a new commentary published online on Wednesday (July 11) in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution, an interdisciplinary group that includes geneticists, bioanthropologists, and archaeologists argues that we didn’t evolve from a single population in a single region of Africa, but rather from separate populations across Africa that fully mixed only much later. [Image Gallery: Our Closest Human Ancestor]
Evidence is showing that “human ancestors were already scattered across Africa,” said Eleanor Scerri, a research fellow at Oxford University and lead author of the paper. And “the combination of behavioral and physical and cognitive features that define us today started to slowly emerge within the occasional mixing of these different ancestral groups,” she added. (Scerri is also a research associate for the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany.)
To draw this conclusion, Scerri and her team not only looked at the available fossil evidence, but also at genetic, archaeological and paleoenvironmental data.
About half a million years ago, Neanderthals and Homo sapiensbegan to diverge from a common ancestor, according to Scerri. But only around 300,000 years ago did early people actually begin to have features that made them look like humans, she said.
Even then, “all the fossils between 300,000 years ago and about 100,000 years ago don’t really look like anyone living today,” Scerri told Live Science. The features that define us today, such as a small face, prominent chins, a globular skull and small teeth, were indeed present back then, but not all in a single person, she said.
“These features tend to be distributed across the early fossils in different combinations with different, what we call, more primitive or archaic features that we don’t see in anyone living today,” Scerri said. So, someone in Eastern Africa may have had the small teeth, whereas someone in southern Africa may have had a globular skull while the rest of their features remained primitive.
And these groups remained separate for a long time, because the dense forests and deserts in Africa served as formidable barriers, according to Scerri. But with the occasional mixing of different groups, between 100,000 and 40,000 years ago, fossils that combine all the modern features in a single individual begin to appear, Scerri said.
“Which means, of course, that evolution probably progressed at a different speed and tempo in different regions of Africa as different groups came into contact with each other at different times,” Scerri said. Though it’s not clear when most humans on the planet had these modern features, by about 12,000 years ago, when hunting and gathering gradually shifted to agriculture, archaic features such as an elongated head and large robust faces had all but disappeared in humans, Scerri said. (In any case, these archaic features, it should be noted, don’t correspond to how “culturally backward” a culture was, Scerri added.)
Ancient tools also buttress this theory, Scerri said.
For about two million years, hominins made “somewhat crude” handheld tools like hand axes or large cutting tools, Scerri said. About 300,000 years ago, “there’s really an explosion of different and specialized stone tool forms,” she added. These tools, that often used different bindings, different glues, and different designs, took hold in different places across the continent.
“I think there are just a handful of people who are really, really strong proponents of the idea that modern people came from one very restricted region,” said Becky Ackermann, a biological anthropologist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa who was not an author of the commentary. So “I don’t think the conclusions themselves were particularly novel.” [Top 10 Mysteries of the First Humans]
However, “it’s good to see [these ideas] being considered in kind of a holistic way,” she added.
“Who was arguing the contrary?” said Jon Marks, a professor of anthropology at University of North Carolina, Charlotte, who was also not part of the study. Though the findings didn’t come as a shock to Marks, he thinks they point to an important problem in the field — we might be using the wrong metaphors to describe evolution, namely, Darwin’s branching tree.
“What we’re seeing is a tree is not necessarily the most appropriate metaphor to apply to recent human ancestry,” Marks told Live Science. The more appropriate metaphors would be something that branches and then comes back together, rather than branches on a tree, he said.
These could include the roots of a tree, braided streams or capillary systems, he said.
Stone tools 2.1 million years old unearthed in China suggest human kin left Africa earlier than thought
NEW YORK – Stone tools recovered from an excavation in China suggest that our evolutionary forerunners trekked out of Africa earlier than we had thought.
Until now, the oldest evidence of human-like creatures outside Africa came from 1.8-million-year-old artifacts and skulls found in the Georgian town of Dmanisi. The new find pushes that back by at least 250,000 years. There have been other claims of even older fossil discoveries, the study authors said, but those remain unproven.
“There may be older evidence in places like India and Pakistan, but so far … the evidence is not strong enough to convince most of the research community,” said study co-author Robin Dennell of Exeter University in England. “With this type of claim, for an early human presence in a region, the evidence has to be absolutely water-tight and bomb-proof.”
“It’s absolutely a new story,” said archaeologist Michael Petraglia of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany, who did not participate in the study. “It means that early humans were getting out of Africa way earlier than we ever realized.”
That exit came long before our own species, Homo sapiens, even appeared. The researchers believe the tools were made by another member of the Homo evolutionary group. “Our discovery means that it is necessary now to reconsider the timing of when early humans left Africa,” Dennell said.
Hominins — humans and their extinct predecessors and relatives — are believed to have emerged in Africa more than 6 million years ago. They are thought to have left the continent in several migration waves starting about 2 million years ago.
The first migrants were likely members of the species Homo erectus (“upright man”) or Homo ergaster (“working man”) — extinct predecessors of Homo sapiens (“wise man”), which first emerged about 300,000 years ago in Africa.
The oldest known African fossil attributed to a member of the Homo family is a 2.8-million-year-old jawbone from Ethiopia.
The items found in China include several chipped rocks, fragments and hammer stones. The 96 artifacts — mainly flakes made with rudimentary hammers, and likely used for cutting meat and other food — were dug up from 17 layers of sediment in an area known as the Loess Plateau, north of the Qinling Mountains, which divide the north and south of China.
The youngest layer where tools were found was 1.26 million years old, and the oldest 2.12 million years, according to the study published in Wednesday’s journal Nature. The layers were used to date the tools, which are of a type known to have been manufactured by Homo species in Africa since at least 3.3 million years ago.
So far, no hominin bones have been found.
The team used paleomagnetism — minerals that show how the Earth’s magnetic field was oriented when they formed — to date the sediment layers, and so the artifacts found within them. The dates of geomagnetic reversals, when north and south flipped, are well known to scientists, and the movements of the magnetic poles and the continents can narrow down a date.
“We were very excited,” said Zhaoyu Zhu, a professor at the Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, who led the fieldwork. “One of my colleagues suddenly noticed a stone embedded in a steep outcrop. After a short while, more artifacts were found — one after another.”
The tools were distributed throughout layers of dirt, suggesting that our unidentified ancient relatives came back to the same site over and over, possibly following animals to hunt. Researchers also found bones of pigs and deer, but were not able to provide proof that the tools were used for hunting.
Some experts not involved in the research think that the findings need to be considered with caution. “I am skeptical,” said Geoffrey Pope, an anthropologist from William Paterson University in New Jersey. “I suspect this discovery will change very little.”
The problem, he said, is that sometimes nature can shape stones in a way that they look as if they were manufactured by hand. Scientists know, for example, that rocks smashed together in a stream can acquire sharp edges.
But Sonia Harmand, an archaeologist at Stony Brook University in New York who studies stone tools, disagreed.
“This could be, frankly, one of the most important (archaeological) sites in the world,” Harmand said.
Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity
Bizarre fossils from China are revealing our species’ Asian origins and rewriting the story of human evolution
By Kate Douglas
DECEMBER 1941. Japan has just entered the second world war. China, already fighting its neighbour, is in the firing line. At the Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Hu Chengzhi carefully packs two wooden crates with the world’s most precious anthropological artefacts. Peking Man – in reality some 200 fossilised teeth and bones, including six skulls – is to be shipped to the US for safekeeping. This is the last anyone ever sees of him.
At the time, the Peking Man remains were the oldest known fossils belonging to human ancestors. Their discovery in the 1920s and 30s caused a sensation, triggering declarations that the cradle of humanity had been found. But just a few decades later, all eyes had turned to Africa. A slew of discoveries there left little doubt that it was our true ancestral home. As far as human evolution was concerned, Asia was out of the picture.
Not any more. The last decade has seen the discovery of new Asian fossils, among others by Chinese palaeoanthropologists with a renewed interest in their heritage. As key moments in our past are rewritten, the spotlight is once more turning east.
Italy says it will seize two migrant rescue ships in the Mediterranean, citing doubts over their legal status.
Italian authorities said the Lifeline and Seefuchs, operated by the German migrant rescue group Mission Lifeline, were “illegally” flying the Dutch flag.
A false flag?
The Lifeline is carrying 226 migrants rescued off the coast of Libya, Mission Lifeline said.
Separately, the UN refugee agency has reported that 220 migrants drowned in the same area in recent days.
It called for “urgent action” from EU countries.
Let me tell you a lil’ something about urgent action:
Here’s what the Italians had to say:
Italy’s new right-wing government has taken a harder stance on rescue ships bringing large numbers of migrants to Italy, which is often the nearest port for those rescued off coast of Libya.
Italy’s Infrastructure Minister Danilo Toninelli said the ship had broken the law by taking the migrants, even though the Libyan coastguard had already intervened to rescue them.
He said Italy would seize both the Lifeline and the Seefuchs to determine their legal status, and said Italy would “once again save the migrants”.
Clearly, the Dutch are back at their old schemes and tricks again. They’re acting like pirates again, ferrying blacks and Moslems and Moslem blacks into Europe.
Only, this time the Italians are not having it.
Lads, we’re looking at a looming naval battle the likes of which we haven’t seen since Lepanto coming to the Mediterranean.
Just like it was five hundred years ago, so it is now, Moslem pirate ships are plowing the waters of the Mediterranean, landing on Europe’s shores and plundering the locals.
We need a coalition of the willing to throw back these Nigger-Moslem vessels.
So far, Italy stands alone.
Spain has capitulated and Greece is being crushed under the Merkel yoke. The Latin powers who have held the line for centuries against the heathen hordes need reinforcements.
Soon, we’re going to need to deploy the Stormer Frat Bro Yacht Divisions to help out.
Every frat in America will be mobilized, every Sperry store will be stripped down for equipment and every single fridge raided for enough Bud Light to last the voyage over and the victory celebrations for when the battle is won.
I want every single yacht bro ready to go.
Time to get prepping. I want those ships battle-ready by the end of this summer. I’m talking a machine gun where the satellite dish is now and some armor on the hull.
Time is ticking. You have all summer to get ready. Get the charts and the snacks ready.
We have to be ready to cross the Atlantic to help the Guidos at a moment’s notice.
Matteo Salvini, Italy’s far-right interior minister, has declared victory after a standoff over the fate of 629 people on a humanitarian rescue boat prompted Spain to agree to accept them.
The impasse, after the populist and far-right government in Italy refused to allow the MS Aquarius to dock over the weekend, suggested that Europe could face a humanitarian crisis this summer as it comes to grips with the new Italian government’s hardline approach to refugees and migrants.
The Merkel policy of “let them eat niggers” is no longer viable.
Destiny is coming.
Merkel has to confront Salvini and tell him he has to accept these niggers, or it proves she is weak. Others will rise up and challenge her.
Salvini blocked the ship from Italian ports and said it should go to Malta instead. Malta refused, saying it had nothing to do with a rescue mission overseen by the Italian coastguard in waters off Libya.
“We have opened a front in Brussels,” said Salvini, who became interior minister last week. “We are contacting the European commission so that it can fulfil its duties towards Italy that have never been respected.”
With the UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, urging the urgent disembarkation of all 629 people on board, including 100 children, as provisions ran out, Pedro Sánchez, Spain’s new prime minister, gave permission for the MS Aquarius to dock in Valencia. He said his country would welcome those on board.
You just committed to a lot more than 629 niggers, Spaincucks.
While it appeared on Monday that an immediate crisis had been averted by Spain, Salvini’s response, and a statement indicating he would block more ships carrying refugees and migrants, promised that there would be more of such confrontations in the future.
The new Italian approach by the ruling coalition of Salvini’s far-right League and the populist Five Star Movement followed an election campaign this year in which Salvini vowed to adopt tough polices on migrants.
The standoff over the Aquarius marks the first time that his rhetoric has translated into action as interior minister, a role in which he will have oversight of migration and domestic security.
CAESAR SALVINI IS A MAN OF ACTION!
HE WILL LET ALL OF THESE NIGGERS DROWN!!!
It has also left the NGOs on the frontlines of rescuing migrants at sea – and who sometimes have faced direct confrontations with Libyan coastguard officials seeking to take the migrants back to Libya – in uncertain territory about what comes next.
Yeah you don’t hear that point often – the NGOs confront Libyan authorities who are trying to stop this route because they don’t want all these niggers coming through their country.
“’We don’t know if Italy will continue blocking us, we don’t know if they will close again the seaports. What we know is that we will continue coordinating the rescue operation with [rescue officials],” said Mathilde Auvillain of SOS Méditerranée, which operates the Aquarius.”
Fuck you, whore.
Italy WILL continue to cockblock your rape-apes.
The jig is up!
She added: “We’ll wait for the instructions as we always did. If it is not Italy it will be another country. As I said, our rescue operation will continue, regardless.”
IT’S NOT A “RESCUE OPERATION” – IT IS A FUCKING TAXI SERVICE.
WE HAVE THE MAPS YOU FUCKING STUPID WHORE.
IF YOU STOPPED PICKING THEM UP THEY WOULD STOP COMING.
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT STARVING, LET ALONE FLEEING THE WAR IN SYRIA – WE HAVE READ THE ARTICLES ABOUT HOW THEIR FAMILIES IN GHANA DON’T WANT THEM TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES BUT THEY SEE RACE CARS AND WHITE WOMEN ON FACEBOOK AND SO MAKE THIS JOURNEY TO INVADE US.
THIS IS AN ANTI-WHITE AGENDA TO MAKE EUROPE A PART OF AFRICA! WE KNOW THIS!
THE JIG IS UP!
“People are in distress, are running out of provisions and need help quickly. Broader issues such as who has responsibility and how these responsibilities can best be shared between states should be looked at later,” said Vincent Cochetel, the UNHCR’s special envoy for the central Mediterranean, before Spain made its offer.
No one cares, faggot!
If anything at this point people WANT to see these monkeys DROWN!
They have been recognized as an enemy invasion force! On a biological level! Selling them as victims has failed! No one is buying that shit anymore except a few stupid white whores who are looking forward to their first gang-rape!
More than 600,000 people have reached Italy by boat from Africa in the past five years, and it is estimated as many as 500,000 are still in the country.
The European commission, anxious to avoid feeding the new Italian government’s anti-EU narrative, had earlier called on Italy and Malta to consider the humanitarian needs of those on board.
“France pushes people back at the border, Spain defends its frontier with weapons. From today, Italy will also start to say no to human trafficking, no to the business of illegal immigration,” said Salvini said on Sunday, adding that Malta “takes in nobody”.
The Maltese government rejected a request to take in the boat, saying international law required that the refugees and migrants be taken to Italian ports.
Malta’s prime minister, Joseph Muscat, thanked Spain on Twitter for taking in the Aquarius “after Italy broke international rules and caused a standoff”. He said his country would be “sending fresh supplies to the vessel. We will have to sit down and discuss how to prevent this from happening again. This is a European issue.”
Yeah, it all goes to Italy. The entirety of infinity niggers.
Salvini shall be CAESAR!
HAIL NEW ROME!
While it’s great that the flood has now been stopped, we must remove now the half million who are in Italy – by any means necessary.
It’s now time to pardon Luca Traini and put him in charge of deportations – by whatever means he deems necessary.
SAN FRANCISCO — In this deeply liberal California city, frustration over crises around housing and homelessness is bringing some on the left a little further right.
At an upscale sushi restaurant, a few dozen members of the San Francisco Republican Party gathered on Tuesday night to watch the election results. Most did not want to talk about state or national politics, they wanted to keep it local.
The group largely supported the Republican candidate for governor, John H. Cox, whom President Trump had endorsed and who won a place on the ballot along with Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and a former San Francisco mayor. But among the longtime Republicans were some newcomers, drawn to the right over frustration with the city’s trifecta of very tangible crises: a large homeless population, record housing costs and a high rate of property crime.
“We’re the most beautiful city no one ever wants to come back to,” said Anna Coles, 36, a real estate agent who has lived in the city for 12 years.
Ms. Coles has seen a surprising resurgence of conservative politics this year on Nextdoor, a website that creates private neighborhood-specific social networks.
“I mean, I see people post these long diatribes about the petty crime and homelessness,” Ms. Coles said. “Folks are realizing they can’t vote along party lines anymore.”
This troubling brew is pulling otherwise liberal residents into Republican politics, said Jason Clark, 37, the chairman of the San Francisco Republican Party, who organized Tuesday night’s event.
“People are starting to ask, ‘Maybe we need a Rudy Giuliani?’ ” Mr. Clark said, referring to the conservative former New York mayor who took a hard-line stand on crime during the 1990s. “Democrats have held this city for six decades, and they’re running out of boogeymen to blame.”
Mr. Trump’s name rarely came up, although the drink specials included Make S.F. Great Again (vodka, peach schnapps and orange juice).
Drugs on the street were a recurring topic among voters.
“We talk about the opioid epidemic in flyover states, and we pretend what we’re dealing with isn’t that,” said Magan Biggs, 28, an account executive at a title insurance firm. “And you can live on the outskirts of the city and pretend it’s not happening, but it is happening.”
Many in the group were involved in the real estate industry. Some suggested that the nascent pro-development YIMBY movement (shorthand for Yes In My Backyard) could be a way for young, liberal voters to find themselves leaning toward more business-friendly policies and voting Republican.
“Go to the neighborhood association meetings, and it doesn’t seem so liberal,” a real estate developer, John Dennis, said. “The YIMBYs, some of those folks might be ready to change affiliation.”
Those trying to navigate the rental market felt that the government had let them down by not building more in the city.
“Democrats have been in charge of San Francisco, and everything keeps getting more expensive,” said Aidan O’Sullivan, 27, who works in advertising and identifies as a libertarian.
But there are few viable local Republican candidates, and it remains to be seen if interest in more conservative politics translates into changes in how those in the city identify politically. The Republican candidate for mayor, Richie ((((((Greenberg)))))), knew that he was a long shot and that using the “R-word” was riskier than running as an Independent.
“They think, ‘Oh my God, here’s a Trump incarnate here in the city,’ ” he said. “But there is an awakening happening here among lifelong Democrats.”
Even if voters might agree with conservative candidates, said Edward Bate, 49, a real estate agent and San Francisco native, they would still have to contend with the poor local reputation of the party, which is further soured by national politics.
“It’s hard because people don’t want to identify as Republican, per se,” he said. “But then they look around.”
A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: Liberal City Is Pushed To the Right By Urban Ills