Friday, August 17, 2018

David Duke Show August 17h, 2018 with guest Mark Collett

Journofa: Newsweek Targets Paul Joseph Watson For Censorship

I’m not a fan of Paul Joseph Watson.
We told him that these “journalists” were going to try to get him purged from social media back when the Alt-Right was being purged after Charlottesville. The purge was already going on for months before the Unite the Right rally. Instead of standing up for free speech, he piled on.

Let that sink in.

Read More:

Feminism's Faustian Bargain and the Failure of Reaction

It is all but certain now that the ideological descendants of the Frankfurt critical theorists and the French postmodernists, once such critics of capitalism - have entered into unholy alliance with corporate power to oust conservative and reactionary voices from the public sphere and ultimately remake western civilization in their own image.

But this is a Faustian bargain, an arrangement worthy of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor. For these so called progressives have become dependent on corporate power and the structure thereof to do this. Christ had the wisdom and foresight to resist Satan's temptations of worldly power. Today's social justice crowd, like the Soviet socialists and medieval church before them, do not. They'll throw themselves at Old Nick's cloven feet faster than a Scandinavian black metal band. The progressives will not hesitate to use conglomerate media to hoist feminist and other "socially progressive" ideologies on the populace and fire and blacklist those who oppose them.

But wasn't resistance to this kind of power the purpose of critical theory to begin with?

The feminist and SJW types are so fond of reminding us white dudes that America's wealth was purchased at the expense of native genocide, black slavery, wars for imperialism abroad and ongoing discrimination at home. But as the voices with which feminism's indictment are made louder by state, corporate and academic leverage, does not their complicity and even their shared guilt for these attrocities likewise grow? As they integrate themselves into the power structure, telling themselves that it's okay when they do it because they intend to use that power structure in a subversive manner, do they not also partake in it sins, past and present, whether they would admit or accept this or not? Is the platform from which they remind us of our privilege not built on the same black slavery and native genocide they're condemning?

It's not sexism and racism when college feminists or New York Times columnists do it. Yeah, sure. Power plus prejudice and all of that. Where have we heard that kind of thinking before? The USSR can't be oppressive, because oppression is the means by which one class exploits another and the great Soviet motherland, being a socialist state and therefore controlled by "the workers" has no exploitation, and is on the road to becoming a classless society. I'd doubt that the millions who died in the gulags would forgive the Kremlin its self serving sophistry and moral rationalizing. Though guilty of far lesser evils (so far) the feminist establishment in the culture industry of today is every bit as guilty of the same kind of egocentric arrogance and hypocrisy.

Keep trying to lie to the devil, sisters. I'm sure he might even start believing you one of these days.

Thus are the existing political categories rendered obsolete. The right who rails against "cultural Marxism" does so oblivious to the fact that it is capitalist mechanisms that are being used to "destroy the west" as they put it. As if deindustrialization and financial global capital didn't already do that under the rubric of neoliberal laissez faire and free trade, ideas conservatives and reactionaries not so long ago championed. Most still do. The devil does not give up his souls easily.

Read More:

Homosexual Predators, not Pedophile Priests are Church’s Deadly Cancer

Growing up in Mumbai, I had the joy of living within walking distance of the Catholic seminary of St Pius X. The seminary was an oasis of tranquillity amidst the city’s cacophony. I remember with gratitude the welcome, hospitality and nurture I received from the faculty and seminarians.
Candidates aspiring to join the seminary were invariably asked one definitive question: “Do you like girls?” Young men aspiring to be celibate priests found the question a tad embarrassing in what was then socially conservative India.
Occasionally a red-blooded male teeming with testosterone would reply “No! I don’t like girls”. He was promptly cast out into outer darkness. He would later realize that the Archdiocese of Bombay expected you to like girls because if you liked boys you’d be more often in the shower rooms than in the classrooms of a seminary filled exclusively with boys and men.
Unlike the Archdiocese of Bombay, the majority of dioceses in the USadopted the reverse policy. If a young man displayed an inclination towards members of the same sex, the Lavender Mafia welcomed him into the gay club. Much of the horrendous sexual abuse in this week’s Grand Jury’s report is part of a pattern of homosexual predation in the US Catholic Church beginning in seminaries and culminating in the College of Cardinals.
The Grand Jury’s opening statement would be grandly Dickensian if it were not so gravely tragic.
“There have been other reports about child sex abuse within the Catholic Church. But never on this scale. For many of us, those earlier stories happened someplace else, someplace away. Now we know the truth: it happened everywhere.”

Read More:


It is too late for most of us. We have already been invaded by the vile scourge of Hipsters, with their bicycle helmets, constant social media-ing, and arcane tastes in coffee, kelp, and artisanal toilet paper

But some areas still remain intact from this terrible plague that threatens to turn all life on Planet Earth into an endless round of pointless moral signalling and fake attempts at being "authentic" all posted on Twitter and Facebook. 

But luckily there are still heroic men who are prepared to make a stand and defend the Hipster-free World from further Hipster incursions, as we see in the heart-warming story of five brave young Tajiki men, who, while going about their innocent business of kababbing in a Kebab Land, were suddenly confronted by the horror of four full-grown Hipsters attired in their disgusting bicycle gear invading their pristine land in search of "social media" updates to signal how global-homo they were.  

Without a thought for their own safety, they quickly responded and did what had to be done, as reported by the New York Times:

The men’s Daewoo sedan passes the cyclists and then makes a sharp U-turn. It doubles back, and aims directly for the bikers, ramming into them and lurching over their fallen forms. In all, four people were killed: Mr. Austin, Ms. Geoghegan and cyclists from Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Some have tried to present this story as the brutal killing of innocent cyclists by hateful locals, possibly spurred on by the "Religion of Peace." But the facts are undeniable -- two of the four invaders were Hipsters of an unquestionably toxic level. 

Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan had begun their social media documented road trip in July 2017, after quitting their SWPL-ly jobs because they had "grown tired of the meetings and teleconferences, of the time sheets and password changes." 

Wow, how many likes did that status update get?

Burkas and Buffoons: Boris Johnson, Baroness Warsi and the War on White

Have you ever seen a scorpion try to sting a stone? Me neither. But I’ve seen something very like it. It was an article in the Guardian with the headline: “‘They’ve brought evil out’: Hungary’s poll on migration divides a nation.” The article excoriated the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán for “whipping up xenophobic sentiment,” “spreading hate,” “sowing tension,” “spreading poison,” and making “Hungary’s small minority population even more uncomfortable.”
Foot-soldiers in the War on White
With articles like that, the Guardian has been trying to inject verbal venom into Hungarian politics. It wants to paralyse Hungary’s natural and healthy desire to put its own people first and preserve its unique ethnic character, culture and history. But the Guardian is a scorpion trying to sting a stone. Its verbal venom dribbles harmlessly away, because shrieking about “racism” and “divisive politics” simply doesn’t work in Hungary. Why not? Well, the article itself mentioned one central reason: the “small minority population” there. Thanks to its sensible refusal to accept Third-World immigrants, Hungary doesn’t have large numbers of resentful outsiders ever-ready to condemn native White Hungarians for their ideological sins and to demand harsh laws against hate speech and discrimination.
Sadly, Western nations like Britain, Australia and the United States are no longer like Hungary. They all have fifth columns of resentful outsiders imported by the hostile elite to serve as foot-soldiers in what might be called “The War on White” – on White people, culture, history, traditions, self-confidence and self-worth. Sometimes the foot-soldiers are literally violent, like the Pakistani Muslims who stabbed and burned a 15-year-old White boy to death in Scotland or the Blacks who raped, tortured and stabbed a 16-year-old White girl to death in England. But sometimes the foot-soldiers are ideological, like the Korean SJW Sarah Jeong, whom the New York Times has happily accepted onto its editorial board despite her long history of spreading “hate and poison” against Whites.
The Brown Baroness
Another ideological foot-soldier in the “War on White” is the vacuous but vindictive Muslim peerSayeeda Warsi, who was once appointed by David Cameron to serve as nominal co-chair of the British Conservative party. The real boss was the Jewish businessman Lord Feldman. Like Cameron’s meddling in Libya, Warsi’s appointment backfired spectacularly. She did not meekly accept her intended role of ethnic token and tried to get the Tories to follow Muslim interests. That was unacceptable: like Labour under Blair, the Tories are a wholly owned subsidiary of Zion Incorporated. Warsi noisily resigned in a dispute over Israel and began to wage a guerrilla campaign on the Tories from the House of Lords. In June 2018 she claimed that the party is “poisoned by Islamophobia at every level.” In August she joined the chorus of execration that greeted an “Islamophobic” newspaper column by the Tory politician Boris Johnson. He wrote that, while he did not agree with a ban on burqas recently imposed in Denmark, he thought that women who wore them looked like “letter-boxes” and “bank-robbers.”
Read More:

The confidence game by Vox Day

Some will consider this missive to be overly optimistic. And perhaps it is. On the other hand, it fits the observable evidence considerably better than virtually every other interpretation of current events over the last few months that I've seen. It answers the two primary doubts that Q skeptics have.
  1. Why isn't anything substantive seen to be happening?
  2. Why isn't the President acting more openly?
The answer is straightforward. The control of the media over people's perceptions of what the truth is absolutely has to be broken before news of this magnitude can go public. And now we're seeing the God-Emperor do what he has been doing since his campaign for the Republican nomination began. He is forcing the media to expose themselves and declare themselves openly.

Trust the plan. Recognize the pattern. Shut up and email. 

Do you really think we are not in control? We have everything.
  • Proof of assassination attempts.
  • Proof of murder and child sacrifice.
  • Proof of treason and sedition.
Any time we want, we can pounce. Trump can declare martial law. Legally and instantly if needed. Maybe he already has? Maybe arrests already happened.
  • Hillary 10/30/17.
  • Podesta. Huma. LDR. 11/17.
Catch and release. Of media owners. Of Cabal directors. Less than 100 people. And the 4AM talking point authors.

The media is doing what they are told. And they are told to attack Trump. And the lemmings follow blindly. Along with Congress and the world. Why? It's actually quite simple. Genius. Elegant. Foolproof.

The current battle is against the media.
  • Step 1: Force media to destroy themselves.
  • Step 2: Expose media as the people's enemy.
  • Step 3: People blame media for the coverup.
  • Step 4: Media is destroyed and replaced. Arrests are easy. Institutions are not.
Faith in the media must be destroyed.

Trump lets them live in jail, if plan works. Otherwise their sentence is death. Military tribunals already held. They are working hard for Trump. To save their own lives, and their kids. Jail better than hanging to most. Others have already chosen hanging. Explains suicide weekend option.

In exchange, they destroy the media for us. On purpose and on schedule. On time and under budget. Trump style. They are forced to corner themselves. They are forced to turn on themselves. More efficient. Saul Alinsky style. I think we are ahead of schedule.

Read More:

Canada: The POST WESTERN Non-Binary Nation

Censorship, Silicon Valley, Free Speech & Rebuilding - Boiler Room

Thursday, August 16, 2018

America's (Near) Thirty Years' War Posted by Tom Engelhardt

Fair warning. Stop reading right now if you want, because I’m going to repeat myself. What choice do I have, since my subject is the Afghan War (America’s second Afghan War, no less)? I began writing about that war in October 2001, almost 17 years ago, just after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. That was how I inadvertently launched the unnamed listserv that would, a year later, become TomDispatch. Given the website’s continuing focus on America’s forever wars (a phrase I first used in 2010), what choice have I had but to write about Afghanistan ever since?
So think of this as the war piece to end all war pieces. And let the repetition begin!
Here, for instance, is what I wrote about our Afghan War in 2008, almost seven years after it began, when the U.S. Air Force took out a bridal party, including the bride herself and at least 26 other women and children en route to an Afghan wedding. And that would be just one of eight U.S. wedding strikes I toted up by the end of 2013 in three countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, that killed almost 300 potential revelers. “We have become a nation of wedding crashers," I wrote, "the uninvited guests who arrived under false pretenses, tore up the place, offered nary an apology, and refused to go home.”
Here’s what I wrote about Afghanistan in 2009, while considering the metrics of “a war gone to hell”: “While Americans argue feverishly and angrily over what kind of money, if any, to put into health care, or decaying infrastructure, or other key places of need, until recently just about no one in the mainstream raised a peep about the fact that, for nearly eight years (not to say much of the last three decades), we've been pouring billions of dollars, American military know-how, and American lives into a black hole in Afghanistan that is, at least in significant part, of our own creation.”
Here’s what I wrote in 2010, thinking about how “forever war” had entered the bloodstream of the twenty-first-century U.S. military (in a passage in which you’ll notice a name that became more familiar in the Trump era): “And let’s not leave out the Army’s incessant planning for the distant future embodied in a recently published report, ‘Operating Concept, 2016-2028,’ overseen by Brigadier General H.R. McMaster, a senior adviser to Gen. David Petraeus. It opts to ditch ‘Buck Rogers’ visions of futuristic war, and instead to imagine counterinsurgency operations, grimly referred to as ‘wars of exhaustion,’ in one, two, many Afghanistans to the distant horizon.”
Here’s what I wrote in 2012, when Afghanistan had superseded Vietnam as the longest war in American history: “Washington has gotten itself into a situation on the Eurasian mainland so vexing and perplexing that Vietnam has finally been left in the dust. In fact, if you hadn’t noticed -- and weirdly enough no one has -- that former war finally seems to have all but vanished.”
Here’s what I wrote in 2015, thinking about the American taxpayer dollars that had, in the preceding years, gone into Afghan “roads to nowhere, ghost soldiers, and a $43 million gas station” built in the middle of nowhere, rather than into this country: “Clearly, Washington had gone to war like a drunk on a bender, while the domestic infrastructure began to fray. At $109 billion by 2014, the American reconstruction program in Afghanistan was already, in today's dollars, larger than the Marshall Plan (which helped put all of devastated Western Europe back on its feet after World War II) and still the country was a shambles.”
And here’s what I wrote last year thinking about the nature of our never-ending war there: “Right now, Washington is whistling past the graveyard. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the question is no longer whether the U.S. is in command, but whether it can get out in time. If not, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the Indians, who exactly will ride to our rescue? Perhaps it would be more prudent to stop hanging out in graveyards. They are, after all, meant for burials, not resurrections.”
And that’s just to dip a toe into my writings on America’s all-time most never-ending war.
What Happened After History Ended
If, at this point, you’re still reading, I consider it a miracle. After all, most Americans hardly seem to notice that the war in Afghanistan is still going on. To the extent that they’re paying attention at all, the public would, it seems, like U.S. troops to come home and the war to end.
That conflict, however, simply stumbles on amid continuing bad news with nary a soul in the streets to protest it. The longer it goes on, the less -- here in this country at least -- it seems to be happening (if, that is, you aren’t one of the 15,000 American troops stationed there or among their families and friends or the vets, their families and friends, who have been gravely damaged by their tours of duty in Kabul and beyond).
And if you’re being honest, can you really blame the public for losing interest in a war that they largely no longer fight, a war that they’re in no way called on to support (other than to idolize the troops who do fight it), a war that they’re in no way mobilized for or against? In the age of the Internet, who has an attention span of 17 years, especially when the president just tweeted out his 47th outrageous comment of the week?

If you stop to think about it between those tweets, don’t you find it just a tad grim that, close enough to two decades later, this country is still fighting fruitlessly in a land once known by the ominous sobriquet “the graveyard of empires”? You know, the one whose tribal fighters outlasted Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the British, and the Russians.
Read More:

The Free Press Hypocrites Want To Censor Social Media

“NEW YORK (AP) — The nation’s newsrooms are pushing back against President Donald Trump with a coordinated series of newspaper editorials condemning his attacks on “fake news” and suggestion that journalists are the enemy.
The Boston Globe invited newspapers across the country to stand up for the press with editorials on Thursday, and several began appearing online a day earlier. Nearly 350 news organizations have pledged to participate, according to Marjorie Pritchard, op-ed editor at the Globe.
In St. Louis, the Post-Dispatch called journalists “the truest of patriots .” The Chicago Sun-Times said it believed most Americans know that Trump is talking nonsense. The Fayetteville, N.C. Observer said it hoped Trump would stop, “but we’re not holding our breath .” …”
Read More:

James Edwards Responds to New York Times’ Request for Comment

Serge Kovaleski of the New York Times, however, is one of the few reporters with whom I am willing to speak. We’ve had a couple of pleasant exchanges over the years and he’s always been courteous and fair. I was happy to oblige when Serge contacted me yesterday to get a quick comment for an upcoming article.
You can read a partial transcript below.
Serge Kovaleski:
Hi James,
Hope you have been well since we last communicated.
For a story for tonight, I am hoping you could share some insights into why turnout, as reported, was low for yesterday’s Unite The Right event in DC. What’s going on within the alt right?
Please feel free to email me your thoughts like last time.
Thank you again, James.
Best regards,
James Edwards:
I was able to get back to this more quickly than I originally anticipated.
Here is my quote:
“I think a couple of things are going on in the Alt Right. We discovered at Charlottesville that our free speech rights would not be protected and that the police would allow Antifa to attack us with impunity, putting us in an impossible position. If we defend ourselves, or someone does something crazy in response to the chaos, we get blamed for the violence. Also, many of us now understand that there are some genuinely unhinged elements that will show up for a public event without careful vetting. Any dissident movement attracts a mix of the highest quality, most principled people who take a stand despite social ostracism, but also a minority of those whose primary motivation is attention and shock value. That’s why most people stayed away from the second event. Because all of us know the pain of being socially ostracized, we often are too soft and accommodating to those who would do reputational damage to our movement. We are growing up, becoming more professional in our approach, and I think you see that with the more measured, controlled demonstrations from groups like Identity Europa over the past year.”
Thanks for reaching out.
Had I been asked the same question on cable news I would have gone on to double down and say that the lessons from Charlottesville are clear. We were denied police protection by express orders of the police chief. He made it clear why the police were not to enforce the law: the government was looking for a pretext to prevent the rally. This was all documented in the Heaphy Report, a report by a former federal prosecutor hired by the City of Charlottesville. The police chief had to resign. None of this was news in the mainstream media which continued with its fake news narrative blaming the victims of Antifa violence.

Read More:

Viktor Orban: Christian Nationalism Is the Future

Recently, Viktor Orbán delivered a speech to Hungarian students at a summer university conference, outlining his Christian nationalist reforms and vision for Hungary, which he places in its historical and contemporary political context. We will cover this historic speech, highlighting its strengths, analyzing some of its weaknesses and addressing its implications for Hungary and the Western world in general.
Orbán starts off by noting that he believes that 2011 marked the start of a new era in Hungarian history. In that year a new constitution was accepted “based on national and Christian foundations.” With a new era, however, he does not mean a new political era, but rather a new “spiritual order,” with the task of government being the embedding of “the political system in a new cultural era.” This understanding of the Hungarian Sitz im Leben reflects a covenantal paradigm rooted in historical Christianity, where the epistemic or belief-system is always determinative for the well-being of the political order and not vice versa.
Orbán points to the socioeconomic advances made by his government over the past eight years in government: wages increased by 60%, the national debt dropped from 85% of the GDP to 71%, the fertility rate increased from 1.25 to 1.5, and crime dropped by half. But the work isn’t done yet. He still has big dreams for the country:
By 2030 we want to be among the EU’s five most competitive countries. By 2030 we should halt our demographic decline. By 2030 we should physically link Hungary within its present-day borders with the other areas: motorways and dual carriageways should extend as far as the state borders. By 2030 let Hungary become independent in terms of its energy supply, which has become an important dimension of security. Let us complete the Paks nuclear power development, and start using new energy sources. We should suppress widespread illnesses, build the new Hungarian Defense Force, and set about building up the economic structure of Central Europe.
One of Orbán’s aims is building up the culture of Central Europe, which he sees in contradistinction with Western European culture, in order for the region to become the cultural, economic, and political stronghold of the continent. He outlines five tenets of this project. Central European countries should:
1) Defend its Christian culture, and reserve the right to reject multiculturalist ideology.
2) Defend the traditional family model, being entitled to assert that every child has the right to a mother and a father.
3) Defend nationally strategic economic sectors and markets.
4) Defend its borders, and reserve the right to reject immigration.
5) Insist on the principle of one nation, one vote on the most important issues, which right must not be denied in the European Union.
Read More:

Florida Judge Criticizes The Sun Sentinel For Honest Reporting On Nicolas Cruz by ALEX ROBERTS

The South Florida Sentinel Sun and two of its reporters found themselves criticized Wednesday by a Broward judge after they showed journalistic integrity and published information that had been legally obtained. Broward Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer placed the blame on the newspaper’s lawyer, Dana McElroy, for giving her the impression that the Sun Sentinel agreed not to publish any information that was not supposed to be disclosed under Florida’s public records laws. The information that was recently published by the Sun Sentinel revealed information that school officials had about school shooter Nicolas Cruz nearly a year and a half before he killed 17 people earlier this year.
Dana McElroy countered the criticism of Judge Elizabeth Scherer when she argued that the Sun Sentinel never made that promise and the court orders barring the release of the information that had been disclosed by the Sun Sentinel only applied to government agencies, not the media. The Sun Sentinel is in full agreement that government agencies, more specifically, the Broward School Board had the right to withhold private information concerning Nicolas Cruz from the public under Florida state law. However, with that said once the information was released and came to the attention of the Sun Sentinel the newspaper was well within its own legal rights to publish the information.
In a court brief that was filed Tuesday 30 media organizations led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press including the Society of Professional Journalist and the American Society of News Editors spoke up in defense of the Sun Sentinel. The large coalition of news organizations are calling upon Judge Elizabeth Scherer to deny the Broward School Board’s motion to see the Sun Sentinel, and the two reporters who broke the story Paula McMahon and Brittany Wallman punished for doing their job.
Earlier this month on August 3 the school district released a report that revealed information school officials could and should have known about school shooter Nicolas Cruz before the events that took place on February 14 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School where he ended the lives of 17 people in a deadly display of gun violence. In compliance with court order the county was supposed to black out nearly two thirds of the report that had been released to the public. However, the method that they used to post the report on the districts website made it possible for the black out portions to be read by anyone who copied and pasted the report to another document.
Read More:

Using Anti-White Rhetoric for Career Advancement by Gregory Hood

Sarah Jeong leads the way.

For a society supposedly dominated by white privilege, being anti-white certainly seems not to hold back your career. Sarah Jeong, the latest addition to the New York Times’ editorial board, said this in a speech:
Everything is implicitly organized around how men see the world. And not just men, how white men see the world. And this is, this is a problem. This is why so many things suck.
Despite such sentiments, she is now part of the governing body of an institution that her political theory would claim is dominated by white privilege. White privilege does not prevent the paper from defending Miss Jeong’s contemptuous comments and tweets about whites. Indeed, the only employee at the paper who mildly criticized her has already apologized. Most of the mainstream media has defended her, and outlets such as Vox are suggesting that only the “Alt-Right” would object to what she said.
National Review executive editor Reihan Salam wrote an article about Miss Jeong titled“The Utility of White-Bashing” for The AtlanticLike his fellow “conservative” David French, Mr. Salam does not say Miss Jeong should be fired, but concedes that anti-white racism can actually exist, unlike so many others who tell us it not “a thing.”
Mr. Salam suggests anti-white posturing serves both as a “means of ascent” and a justification of elevated status for both whites and Asians. He recognizes that anti-white rhetoric is a requirement of entry into elite institutions in American life, particularly universities.
“Their admissions decisions represent powerful ‘nudges’ towards certain attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors,” he writes, “and I’ve known many first- and second-generation kids—I was one of them—who intuit this early on.” Indeed, according to one recent report, at least one top college has confronted applicants who followed Alex Jones on Twitter. Some scholars have argued that stereotypically “conservative” or “white” high-school activities such as 4-H Club, Future Farmers of America, and Junior ROTC hurt an applicant’s chances for admission to elite institutions.
Mr. Salam calls this anti-white orthodoxy a “code” that must be “cracked” by ambitious whites and Asians. As he puts it, only someone worried that Harvard might reject him will take offense at recent reports that the school is discriminating against Asians because of their supposedly lackluster personalities. Mr. Salam says a true elitist would consider such griping “gauche,” and instead celebrate Harvard’s admissions policies as a way of distancing himself from the “less-enlightened” and “less-elite.”
In other words, mastery of anti-white vocabulary is the modern equivalent to the courtly behavior that once determined status among Europe’s aristocrats, with modern universities the equivalent of finishing schools. For the social climber, sincerely opposing double standards on race is as uncouth as not knowing how to dance the minuet.
Read More:

Israeli Government’s “Deposit Law” Aims at Driving out Africans

The 13,000 illegal African invaders who are working in menial jobs in Israel—out of a total of more than 40,000 who are there—have more than 36 percent of any wages they earn docked by the state which will only be paid back to them if they leave, it has emerged.

Israel’s little-known “Deposit Law,” introduced in May 2017, requires all “asylum seekers” who are working in Israel to deposit 20 percent of their salaries into a closed account they can only access when they leave the country.
In addition, another 16 percent is automatically deducted towards the “pension fund” which is inaccessible until they “choose to leave Israel.”
To ensure that an invader is really leaving, the only place authorized by the government to make the payout is the Mizrahi Tefahot Bank branch at Ben-Gurion International Airport.
According to a recent AP report, the Africans say that the law is “another attempt by an anti-migrant government to force them out,” something that the Israeli government readily agrees is the case.
Interior Ministry spokesperson Sabine Haddad said the savings provide “a proper starting point for the beginning of the migrants’ new lives outside of Israel.”
She said the state is currently holding nearly $40m in the “deposit accounts” of more than 13 000 migrants. Of the thousands who have left Israel voluntarily, 400 have withdrawn their money, she said.
Read More: