Majorityrights Central > Category: Media

What happens when WNs accept Russian news reports uncritically? They get misled, that’s what happens. Lasha Darkmoon has an article titled “America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria”. It’s based on an article which she took from Fort Russ, which was titled “Russian operation in Syria revealed the real sponsors of terrorism to the world”.

Let’s examine the core claims of Darkmoon’s Russian-derived article.

Russian claim #1:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

As soon as the Russian air force began to inflict serious blows, the Americans threw a tantrum fit. This is because ISIL militants had appealed to them for help.

Actual Reality: The Americans ‘threw a tantrum’ because the Russians were bombing everything without any concern for the balance of powers in the areas that they were hitting. This led to ISIL in fact gaining ground in some places such as Aleppo, and even involved instances where ISIL was able to induce the Russians to hit ISIL’s inter-sectarian opponents.

See here:

Guardian, ‘Isis seizes ground from Aleppo rebels under cover of Russian airstrikes’, 10 Oct 2015:

Islamic State militants have scored their most significant advances in the province of Aleppo, the closest they have come to Syria’s former commercial capital in two years, as it becomes increasingly clear that they are taking advantage of Russian airstrikes against the rest of the opposition to march into new territory.

As Russian planes continued to pound rebel forces in western Aleppo and other frontlines in the country, many of the opposition fighters who ousted Isis from the province at great cost last year found themselves pinned down and unable to halt the terror group’s largely unopposed advance towards the city at the end of last week.

“Russian planes are striking the Free Syrian Army and laying the groundwork for Daesh [Isis] control of strategic areas in Aleppo,” said a source from Tajammu al-Izzah, a moderate opposition group backed by western and Gulf states which has been hit by Russian airstrikes. “The truth is that Russia is backing Isis.”

[...]

On Friday, taking advantage of the Russian bombing of western Aleppo that has forced the rebels to reinforce their defensive lines there, Isis pivoted towards the south and within hours had taken control of a series of towns and villages to the north of the city of Aleppo, the closest it has come since it was defeated by the opposition.

“Russia entered with the excuse of fighting Daesh and has barely bombed them,” said a religious official serving with Jaysh al-Fateh, a coalition of rebels fighting the Assad government and whose fighters have been targeted by the Russian airstrikes.

“Russia did not come to fight Daesh. Why didn’t they and the American coalition prevent them from advancing in northern Aleppo when they send armoured vehicles through the open desert before everyone’s eyes?

“It is clear that both Russia and the regime are laying the groundwork for Daesh,” he added. “We have a joke here that they all have one operations room.”

[...]

The war is more complicated than Russians believe it is. Sometimes, what happens is that one Islamist group is incited to fight against another Islamist group because of competing territorial claims, or doctrinal disagreements, or because they are a front for a state-backed militia group which is using theological justifications for creating infighting within a particular sect. Because of this, radical Sunni Muslims can sometimes be fighting other radical Sunni Muslims.

If Russia simply gallivants into the middle of that situation and indiscriminately bombs everything that looks like an Islamist, they might in fact be upsetting the balance of terrorism—for lack of a better way of putting it—in a way that could unintentionally lead to ISIL gains.

Which appears to be precisely what the Russians have caused with their ham-fisted approach.

Russian claim #2:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

More than 50 aircraft were transported to Syria. More than 2000 people were transported in transport aircraft to Syria. And not one of the vaunted NATO radars in Turkey, Bulgaria or the other countries in the region were efficient enough to record all this activity!

Actual Reality: Even civilian observers were able to see the movement of Russian aircraft.

Here’s an example:

The Aviationist, ‘Latest imagery shows 28 Russian aircraft (12 Su-24s, 12 Su-25s and 4 Su-30s) on the ground at airbase in Syria’, 22 Sep 2015:

A satellite image has finally unveiled the whole Russian Air Force contingent made of 28 combat planes deployed to Syria: taken on Sept. 21, the photograph shows 4 Su-30SMs, 12 Su-25SMs and 12 Su-24s lined up, in the open air, along runway 17L at al-Assad International Airport, near Latakia, in western Syria.

[...]

And another example:

The Aviationist, ‘Six Russian Su-34 Fullback bomber have just arrived in Syria. And this is the route they have likely flown to get there.’, 29 Sep 2015:

Six Sukhoi Su-34 aircraft have eventually arrived at Latakia to join the Russian contingent already there.

Images allegedly shot around the al-Assad International Airport clearly show one Russian Fullback about to land at the airbase in western Syria where 28 Russian aircraft have arrived last week.

@ain92ru @pfc_joker @oryxspioenkop They arrived! pic.twitter.com/JCi4bIT4F5

— LuftwaffeAS (@LuftwaffeAS) 28 Settembre 2015

One of the photos taken from the ground shows the six aircraft trailing what seems to be an airliner over Idlib: the larger plane is probably a Russian Air Force Tu-154.

Said to be an airliner/transporter accompanied with 6 fighters crossing over Hama country side pic.twitter.com/cPbjVZssyi

— LuftwaffeAS (@LuftwaffeAS) 28 Settembre 2015

Interestingly, a Russian Air Force Tu-154 using callsign RFF7085 could be tracked online on Flightradar24 during its flight to Latakia on Sept. 28, likely exposing the route followed by the six Su-34s trailing their accompanying Tu-154.

As the below image shows, the aircraft flew in international airspace over the Caspian Sea, to Iran and entered Syrian airspace after flying over northern Iraq: did the Su-34s have all the required diplomatic clearances to fly north of Baghdad or did they simply “sneak” into Syria by hiding under the cover of the transport plane?

Hard to say.

Last week, US officials said that the first 28 Russian combat planes hid under the radar signature on the larger transport aircraft, in an attempt to avoid detection but there are chances that the flights had all the required clearances from the Iraqi Air Traffic Control agencies and were conducted as a standard long-range ferry flight: one tanker/airlifter, using radio and transponder, supporting multiple fast jets.

H/T to @LuftwaffeAS and @obretix. Image credit: Flightradar24.com.

If even random civilians on the internet can see it, that’s probably a sign that their operations are not invisible, and are in fact being meticulously recorded—by civilians. At that point, whether NATO is or is not watching, becomes frankly irrelevant.

Russian claim #3:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

US and ISIL (or ISIS) have close ties [...]

This statement seems to be based on a photograph that purports to show Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi with John McCain.

Actual Reality: The man sitting with John McCain is not Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.

I’m sure you can all agree that the Russians were not even trying with that one. I’ll be charitable and assume that’s their idea of a joke. The man with John McCain obviously looks nothing like Al-Baghdadi. He is a member of the Northern Storm Brigade, a group which is fighting against ISIL.

Russian claim #4:

Darkmoon, ‘America furious at Russia’s stunning successes in Syria’, 10 Oct 2015:

There is no perfidy here. We alerted everyone in advance what we were about to do. This included Netanyahu.

Actual Reality: That is true, the Russians did inform Israel in advance. They decided to be courteous to Israel.  It’s a really stupid thing to do, given that Netanyahu has no particular reason to keep any of the information secret from ISIL, as it is in Israel’s geostrategic interest to let ISIL carry on wreaking havoc on Syria.

Recall this fact:

The Algemeiner, ‘Israeli Officials: We’d Prefer Al-Qaeda-Run Syria to an Assad Victory’, 04 Jun 2013:

[...]

According to Israel Hayom, senior Israeli officials were quoted as saying that “al-Qaeda control over Syria would be preferable to a victory by Assad over the rebels.”

Officials believe that an Assad victory would strengthen Iran, as a weakened Syrian regime would become more reliant on the Islamic Republic. The Iran-Hezbollah-Syria axis would thus become an even greater threat to Israel, the officials said.

“Assad is now Iran,” the officials said, according to Israel Hayom. “Any of these groups would be less problematic for Israel than an Assad regime that is a puppet of Iran,” the officials were quoted as saying.

It’s anyone’s guess as to whether Israel’s calculus on that issue has changed since 2013. By “any of these groups”, that can mean Al-Qaeda which they mentioned, but it could also mean they’d be okay with letting ISIL run around doing things too, because “any” means “any”, right? Who can know for sure?

Yet Russia does this, regardless:

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, ‘Russia informed Israel ahead of airstrikes in Syria on ISIS’, 30 Sep 2015:

[...]

Russian officials reportedly contacted their Israeli defense establishment counterparts about an hour before the attack, Israel’s Channel 2 reported. Russian government officials also contacted Yossi Cohen, the national security adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office, Haaretz reported, citing unnamed senior Israeli officials.

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Putin in Moscow to discuss the security threats to Israel from Syria. During the meeting, the two leaders agreed to coordinate between the Israeli and Russian militaries in order to avoid conflicts over Syria. Putin also told Netanyahu that Syria is not in a position to open a second front against Israel.

[...]

So in summary, the only one of those Russian claims which is true, happens to be the most disastrously idiotic one in practice. Apparently the Russians have never heard the phrase ‘loose lips sink ships’, since the loud-mouthed Russians seem to have been perfectly happy to give Israel a whole 60 minutes of warning ahead of each stage of their activities so far.

NATO on the other hand does not make a habit of giving Israel that kind of information, due to various reasons related to Israel’s bad behaviour in the past, which I’m sure that all Majorityrights readers are aware of.

Ahmed Mohamed: Clock Boy.

In the United States, a 14-year old student at Irving MacArthur High School named Ahmed Mohamed brought a device to his school that somehow caused school administrators to call the police, and the police then arrested him.

This is because all of them at least momentarily seemed to have believed that the device he had brought to school was ‘a hoax bomb’. It became immediately apparent that it was not a hoax bomb, and was in fact a clock inside of a pencil case.

Subsequently, a media frenzy developed around Ahmed Mohamed, which has led to an outpouring of sympathy directed toward him from various segments of American society.

The incident went viral on social media and the hashtag “#IStandWithAhmed” was the top non-promoted United States trend on Twitter early on Wednesday morning. Some people alleged that Mohamed was arrested only because of his Muslim name, or because of the way he looked. Many liberals and Muslims claimed the situation was a case of ‘Islamophobia’.

Many others would be inclined to gloss over this story, filing it away as just being an example of Americans being ‘too paranoid about terrorism’, embarrassing themselves, and then reversing course.

However, there are actually more interesting patterns at work here.

READ MORE...

This is being re-posted for a few reasons.

In the years since it was first posted there has yet to be any argument to refute its value to organizing the perspective of interests in whole and fundamental parts for those who care about European peoples. Though its further detail and application would provide benefit, it has not yet gained the currency it should have among WN, who mostly continue to argue that they are “of the right wing”, against “The Left” or “neither left nor right”, thereby foregoing organization in their power, and reacting as our enemies would have it.

The White left thesis may not have gained currency for another reason - it had a very short time (about 4 hours) as a leading article when first republished at Majority Rights before J. Richards posted a sensationalistict, highly conspiratorial and tabloidesque story, with ridiculous imagery leaping forth (the photoshopped arms on this man seem to parody the image just below on the White Left article) - distracting from the careful discussion that the White Left thesis deserves.

Next, for this essay to be understood properly, it needs the context of being published alongside the Kant essay (his moral system as coherence, accountability, agency and warrant). In fact, for the purpose of the Kant essay to be understood, it also needs this juxtaposition; but while important, it is a primary step at this point to the highly relevant arguments which the White Left essay makes. So as not to not distract from these more relevant concerns thus, I place the Kant essay secondly and under the fold, only advising that philosophically, theoretically, it is antecedent for a proper understanding of the history of European philosophical requirements. Finally, republication will provide occasion to shore-up minor errors that should not be passed-on as these essays are a worthwhile resource.

Leftism as a Code Word (Part 1):

When our advocates call our enemies The Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]

Dr. Norman Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal in what she promoted than leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; i.e, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equally? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, viz., openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word. That is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly. Agreed, the charge of liberalism is problematic, with a decided image problem, it has one appearing stodgy and logically entailing ground yielding conservatism in response; thus, another term should be supplied – but not the Left.

When one does have to confront the Jewish question more directly, but is in danger, not free to speak in just any way, one of the best strategies for defending against charges of anti-semitism should be to distinguish between “virulent” and “relatively benign” Jews in accordance with Faussette and Bowery’s theory regarding the cycle of Jewish virulence. Jews, long a people without a nation (beginning with Babylonian captivity and for nearly 2,000 years after that), developed an uncaring, parasitic relation to their host nations, particularly among the elites of their vested interest. After a period of consolidating the wealth of a nation to themselves, the most ‘virulent’ ones escape over the border for a new host country to exploit, while the relatively ‘benign’, situated and accountable ones are subject to the wrath of the host nation’s people who realize belatedly, “’the Jews’ did this to us!” This perpetuates the cycle as the virulent elite bribe their way into a new country, gain farther sympathy, critical absolution and pseudo-justification for their exploits as they point to what ‘they do to us’: the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Roman occupation.

With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of anti-semitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture. Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate against them and separate from them as an entire group, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.

. . .

As with most normal White people, liking my people and myself, I spent most of my life saying that I was neither Left nor Right, if those terms emerged as an issue.

For good reason: as with all normal White people, I’d been repulsed, had a very strong aversion to identifying as leftist. I saw rabid Jewish advocates of non-Whites along with anti-White Whites and heard them called “THE Left” all my life. Yet, I looked at what was being called “the Right”, and I could not quite do that either – it meant that one would be an ignorant hole by definition. I use this vulgarism deliberately to demonstrate that you can indeed, define a term through the pattern of its use in common parlance. Note that a person will be called a hole when they harm others when they do not have to; or, when they let people harm them when they do not have to. That’s characteristic of the Right for a reason – they’re not accountable; they wish to believe in their sheer, objective innocence and not accountable to an encompassing, but delimited “we”, as such.

However, with our struggle’s growing recognition of the disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more, their increasing awareness having shown in the Wall Street protests; moving to understanding of the consequences of corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its relation to the military industrial complex - growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.

At the same time, with the population explosion threatening to overwhelm our demographic and our environment, it is also of acute importance to not identify with the phony “Left” either, which is really just more catastrophic liberalism, if you look at it. That understood, I have come to the realization that saying one is neither Left nor Right is an inarticulate halfway point to extricating oneself from promulgated Jewish definition of the terms. That once one sorts out Jewish perversion and corruption of the terms, that the Left is the best way for us to identify as White advocates.

When our advocates call our enemies “the Left” they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

Our advocates are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations hiding behind a twisted definition of “the Left.” The Left has the moral high ground and the label, Left, has the appearance of that moral high ground because it is supposed to be socially accountable, even if it is a misnomer: which it is, in Jewish application of the term – leftist classification indeed, for Jews, non-Whites, and anti-White Whites, but prescribing obsequious, cataclysmic liberalism for Whites. With that, they are obfuscating the motive of Jews to define us as Rightists and their motivation to drive us there when we react to this misnamed liberal prescription.

At the same time, our advocates are obfuscating our other large problem – our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability – that is Rightism.

While Jews will use this argument too, that they are simply better, meritorious, when it serves their interests, Jewish political planners and academics generally want to maneuver us into a rightist position because it leaves us naive, organizationally weak, amoral, and unaccountable to our own as a relational class of people. White traitors also want us to be rightists so that they can avoid accountability.

Finally, in calling “the Left” our enemy, our advocates obfuscate the means of solution by creating an aversion to what we need – a social classification of ourselves as a people, a full class of people. The Left is always about social classification if you sort out abuse of the term.

Understood how the term is deployed when clear, “The Left” is a function of systemic classification, designating a group of people the interests of whom are to be looked after as a class – protecting against outsiders, e.g. “scab” union busters and plutocratic exploitation of labor. We classify ourselves as Whites for highly analogous reasons: to protect ourselves from opportunistic outsiders and from elitist exploitation and indifference.

If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists - that is because we are advocating a people, not objective facts. We are not simply describing facts, independent of interactive involvement and consequences. We are, if we are good White advocates, saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, to talk about it, at least, it may make a noise, but may as well not for all it matters.” We are taking a people-centric perspective and a White-people-centric position, specifically. We are acknowledging that nothing exists outside of interaction and how facts count must be negotiated between people. As mammals, caring about closer personal relationships, as we do, we most crucially care about White people.

In fact, the moment we refer to ourselves as Whites, or indigenous Europeans – when we refer to ourselves as a people - we are classifying, we are parceling a relative classification of ourselves socially and that is the reality. Whereas the Right, inasmuch as it pursues objectivism independent of interaction, social interaction, and a negotiation of how things count, is always something of an illusion.

If Kevin MacDonald looks at two DNA strands and says, this one is Jewish and this one is White, he must address at least one colleague with this information, in seeking agreement. In some cases, data will be agreed upon by nearly 100% of people and that will generally be called, “objective.” A few may disagree, but they will be considered crazy. Nevertheless, the data, the observation and how it counts, occurs in social interaction (or it may as well not occur at all).

Moreover, to identify who we are as a full social class would give us the moral high ground and powerful organizational function at once. Whereas, when we are made averse to the term Leftism, we are obstructed from accountability to the relative classification of ourselves and others as a people – a classification that takes into account processes, all stages of development (within the lifetime) and evolution (beyond the lifetime); a classification that makes an important difference as it takes into account and respects our paradigmatic differences, differences that make a difference from other groups; our qualitative form and function, systemic pattern, its ecological disbursement, niche differences, logics of meaning and action understood as vastly different from non-Whites; that can make us more cooperative among ourselves and less conflicting with non-Whites when practicality is the better part of valor.

The White Class: viz., persons of native European descent, with interests relative to its class as such, would entail two-way accountability straight away, from those on top and from those in developmental, marginalized stages; i.e., to our relative, relational interests, irrespective of whether White traitors and non-Whites, those outside the White Class, are more or less “objectively” capable. Non-Whites might be allies, but they are not in the class. White traitors are traitors, their abilities only making them more offensive. The White Class, The Indigenous European Class (with its subcategories, yes), would define who we are and to whom we are largely accountable

Coming back to our first big problem in calling “them” the “Left.” ...

When our advocates attribute Leftism to our enemies, they are not addressing the agentive Jewish machinations against our people, but rather attributing the problem to an ideology or less, a devil word, the “Left.” This obfuscates the fact that Jews are classifying themselves and looking after their own interests, hiding their own agency in promoting hyperbolic liberal ideas and antagonism to Whites – promoting those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as “marginals” come to “enrich” us. Jewish agency is hidden behind the attribution of “the Left” – whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC.

Our second big problem obfuscated by calling our enemies, ‘the Left.’ Our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability.

Whether of religious speculation which seeks to establish its pure innocence, a clique of scientistic elitists who seek to establish the pure objective warrant of their discoveries, or the pure might-makes-right of the quasi-individual and the corporate “individual” of U.S. law, the Right is characterizable as a quest for objectivism which would make quick work of accountability –  through a naïve wish to be innocent through objectivism or worse, through a cynical wish to avoid accountability through a pretense of objectivism.

The White Leftist perspective would not begrudge persons who do some things better their due, their difference, so long as they are accountable to the relative interests of the class; however, people tend to want to believe their success is more a result of their sheer independence than it actually is – the Right is pseudo objectivist, faithfully, slavishly leaving nature to its own devices – “we are caused”, pseudo detached from the social, anti-social, therefore unaccountable and inhumane as such – “that’s just the way it is”, according to nature. Failing that, the Right can and will often seek to evade account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.

READ MORE...

Bill Cosby, serial rapist (of White women), narrates the documentary film, Black History Lost, Stolen, or Strayed, 1968.

...it opens with Cosby talking in an integrated classroom setting.

My 5th grade class (10 year olds) was shown this black power film in our own integrated public school classroom. Rather than react in guilt, however, I felt anger at the attempt to impose guilt trips and black interests upon me as a White kid, as I felt no historical debt to them whatsoever and I knew that I wanted nothing to do with blacks (i.e., especially for having experienced them).

In one part of this attempted indoctrination film, Cosby, of all people, criticizes and summarily dismisses D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of the Nation” as a movie made among other reasons to present justification for protecting White women from Negro men.

       
White woman jumps off cliff to get away from Negro in “Birth of a Nation”

After The Birth of A Nation era, an intermediate stage of media stereotypes for blacks is cited by Cosby - the minstrel characters such as the cowardly and obsequious “Step and Fetch It”...

       
Step and Fetch it, a false stereotype sold to lull complacency in conservatives.

...and the “Sambo.” For those familiar with blacks, these Jewish promoted stereotypes of blacks, as silly and benign, were the opposite of comforting. They were recognizable as misleading in regard to the danger of blacks. How many people had violence done to them, lost their daughters or even lost their lives for treating blacks as if they were “funny” and not street-wise predators?

The very popular “Our Gang Comedy”” featured a Sambo character, “Buckwheat” (later parodied by Eddie Murphy). While the rumor that Cosby bought up the rights to Our Gang Comedy to keep the racial stereotype off television may not be true, there can be little doubt from the documentary that the little Sambo character did not appeal to his sensibilities.

Our Gang Comedy was also a Jewish production, which had no qualms in making Whites look tactlessly condescending to blacks.
     

       
“They stole it from me and therefore..
       
...I take what I should have”

Note the obvious Jewish narrative and suggestions that Cosby is imparting…

Cosby:

“The black people in this country got a bum deal for a long while and it won’t hurt much if we see a little of this (a positive stereotype of blacks… presented as upright and entitled to White women on principle). Stanley Kramer (Jewish) has (been so kind as to) let us use some scenes from ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?.’ You look at these and remember Birth of a Nation.”

Those words could have been scripted exactly under the production and direction of Stanley Kramer…

Cosby:

“Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy are the girl’s parents.”

                 
       
Scripted anti-White propaganda..

Hepburn (says to Spencer Tracy with stern authority): “She’s twenty three years old and the way she is is just exactly the way we brought her up to be. We answered her questions, she listened to our answers. We told her it was wrong to believe that the White people were somehow essentially superior to the black people… or the brown or the red or the yellow ones for that matter. People who thought that way were wrong to think that way. Sometimes hateful, usually stupid but always, ALWAYS WRONG. That’s what we said.  And when we said IT we did NOT add that don’t ever fall in love with a colored man.

Cosby:

“or where Sidney tells it like it is to his “old man” (ebonics for “father”)

Poitier: YOU AND YOUR WHOLE LOUSY GENERATION BELIEVE THAT THE WAY IT IS IS THE WAY ITS GOT TO BE! And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs! Do you understand you’ve got to get off my back! (softens) Dad, you’re my father, but you think of yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man.

       
Hence, we see here a mixture of Kramer’s jewish motives and screenwriter William Rose’s White objectivism combining for a catastrophic propaganda: self righteous, anti-White destruction.

                         
Symbolically, Hollywood’s first interracial kiss (sickening) is in a rear-view mirror, as if taken for granted , as if to say that “we’re all beyond being against that.”

“Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?” took the Jewish initiative and set the agenda to mainstream miscegenation. With their pseudo innocence pandered to, their disingenuousness encouraged by having their palms greased, objectivists aided, abetted and exacerbated it. Objectivism is exemplified ad nauseam in the scripted arguments of Hepburn and Poitier.

READ MORE...

                   
J in crypsis as White role model, she specializes in teaching betrayal, insolence and negrophilia to White girls and a message of “resistance is futile” for White males.
           
Following-up on Mick Lately’s proposal that we look at the full throttle psychological warfare against Whites in media (as in the Halifax ads here and here), it is worth taking a look at what she (Whitney Cohen, er Avalon) is doing…

She is the one in the Cheerios commercial. Andrew Hamilton gives background on Saatchi and Saatchi, the advertising firm behind the Cheerios ad:
                                       
Posing as a White woman in the Cheerios ad is Whitney Avalon, real name Cohen.

In her crypsis as a White role model, she specializes in teaching betrayal, insolence and negrophilia to White girls and a message of “resistance is futile” for White men.

She is the pig in crypsis as a White woman, specializing in demoralizing Whites.

Here are her videos which are supposed to be funny but are so laced with contempt for Whites that the only thing that comes-through is her jealousy for European beauty and ability which would compete with her. She will do anything to drag it down.
                               
Here she is displaying her jealousy and contempt for Adele

...and Mary Poppins

Jews vs Cinderella (blondes)
                 
“Our” expensive taste - “It’s hard being ‘White’ with expensive taste”

READ MORE...

Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct.

Anti-Racism is Cartesian.
It is Not innocent.
It is prejudiced,
It is hurting and
It is killing people.

These are both sound aphorisms: either could be a “mantra”, with a caveat regarding mantras - that for best effect they will have to be used with discretion, changed sometimes and crafted on account of context and audience. Such is the judgement and deft rhetoric required of Praxis as opposed to the plodding imperviousness of scientism.

The two aphorisms can go well together:

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is Not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people. Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.

The essential abstract of “race” is taxonomic classification of peoples. Locke’s Cartesian notion of civil individual rights took issue with discrimination based on social classifications. For their ethnocentric reasons, Jews weaponized this anti-classification and anti-discrimination by Whites on the basis of social classifications as “anti-racism.” 

That is what it is in essence. It is true that the Jews have associated “racism” with supremacism, exploitation and genocide; but even taking away those elements, the common denominator of prohibition of discrimination based on social classifications, however benign, remains - as “racism.” Thus, David Duke is wrong (theory is not his strong suit) to campaign against “racism.” While that will gain popularity with the disingenuous and puerile, in so doing, he is reconstructing the liberal hegemony and its stigmatization of social classification for genetically conservative and discriminatory purposes. Moreover, classifications will happen whether they are acknowledged, deliberate or not, but we are much better-off rendering them consciously - as these classifications are essential to accountability and human ecological management.

Other Mantras - -

Fat boy’s mantra is good too:
“If we had our own country this would not be happening.”
Optional - “If White people had their own country this would not be happening.”

Whitaker’s, “Anti-racism” is a code-word for anti-White” will be effective in many instances, but in other cases will run into complications: in some cases, it will come across as a dead-ringer for subjective concern; a request for a definition of “White” can ruin the effect; it has also been criticized for having liberal underpinnings in its long form, which is true. Still, a good one if it takes into account context and audience.

Sometimes it is best to avoid the consternation of the J.Q. but rather undermine (as Cartesian disingenuousness) the underlying coup de grâce of “racism” and “anti-racism” by itself. At times, this will be even more problematic for Jews to contend with (why do you think I am so unpopular?).

Tanstaafl’s proposition of naming it a Jewish construct is important too and good to do where the audience is only slightly less primed. Because active anti-racism, as opposed to the mere “prejudice against prejudice” is, indeed, a Jewish construct. No argument.

Here are two more aphorisms/mantras that I have found to work well over the years:

You wouldn’t want to cut-down a rain forest would you? Then why would you want to cut-down ancient peoples of Europe?

This next one is somewhat harder to sell, but it has been a relief to me as a personal mantra and probably would be for other men as well:

To men, miscegenating women are as rapists are to women. They should be ostracized as a minimum punishment and in no way should their mixed offspring be able to participate in the resources of European men - as it makes our men servants to the worst betrayers of our 41,000 years of genetic evolution.

“To ensure that Wikipedia is Zionist in nature”

In response to Jewish troll JamesUK on February 05, 2015

DanielS
  I was blocked from submitting an article on the obvious phenomenon of “mulatto supremacism”  - which even has notable historical precedent in Haiti’s mulatto supremacist genocide of Whites on the island.

Wikipedia is censored to protect Jewish interests.

Proof of their influence on Wikipedia is to be found in videos which reveal Israeli boiler rooms - groups of people put up to spin wiki articles in a jewish way.

JamesUK
I don’t now what Wikipedia’s policy is on creating entries on its site so I can’t comment on that it.

I heard of Jewish commentators on YouTube like to Israel but not Wikipedia.

Where are the videos?

DanielS
It is so basically factual to anyone who has had dealings with Wikipedia and White activism that I don’t even feel obligated to make the case as a public service; I will leave you to further secretarial detail rather than getting caught up in your game of arguing over the obvious. Instead, I will provide just this one video example which you act as if difficult to find - a ready example of Jewish manipulation of Wikipedia:

Yesha Council in conjunction with “My Israel” has arranged instruction day for wiki editors. The goal is to teach people how to edit in Wiki- pedia, which is the number one source of information in the world. As way of example, if someone searches “the Gaza Flotilla” we want to be there, we want to be the guys who influence what is written there, how its written and to ensure that its ‘balanced’ and Zionist in nature.

...................................................................................

In defense of Edgar Steele’s position in, “In defense of anti-Semitism” (excerpted at the bottom of the post), I said:

The i.q. factor has been adjusted for, to show that Jews are vastly overrepresented due to nepotism and other corrupt means.

JamesUK said in response:

I seriously doubt that seeing how the same pattern can be seen in other countries where they have less influence in state positions like in Russia.

DanielS
Your serious doubt is wrong.

JamesUK
I don’t think so.

DanielS
Well, you are wrong and not worth arguing with.

JamesUK
Seeing how it is an opinion either way there is not much to discuss.

DanielS
Well that’s it. You want to bring into question the obvious. That may show a dull chutzpah but it is only a tedious obstruction as it will not yield significantly new information - there is no scarcity of evidence to the contrary of your position.

But of necessity, I will offer this perfunctory summation:  After factors of i.q. are taken into account, matters of Jewish nepotism, hyper-ethnocentrism, incommensurate ways of life and moral standards which do disservice to European interests and ways,  Jewish coercion, bullying, bribery, brainwashing all have to be taken into account for what they should not be able to do at any rate - head European nations and peoples (which includes Russians), irrespective of the high i.q. of some Jews.

Regarding Duke and Black, we are not here to defend them, they can defend them- selves. We are here to defend Whites and White patterns that need defending.

JamesUK
I don’t but they do run on an openly white political agenda and are members of openly pro-white organisations for decades.

They are the most high profile leaders of the WN movement in the US so they are the political representation of what WN believe in the US.

Other WN’s include Pierce and associates who are a mix of terrorists, mass shooters, a would be wife killer and a paedophile.

DanielS
You don’t get to say who is represented by Duke and Black. They represent them- selves, or anybody who wants to be represented by them, which is not in all ways us.

They are not the only ones who care about European people and not comprehensively representative.

Steele was not a would-be wife killer. That was a set-up.

JamesUK
Facts say otherwise hence his conviction.

DanielS
On the contrary. These are the facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1NG07kU8to Facts say that he was set up. A handyman (Larry Fairfax) that Steele hired to help around his property was a federal informant hired to set him up on the charge of murder for hire of his wife for her insurance. His wife, Cindy, didn’t have insurance. An audio- tape was fabricated to allege his having solicited the hit on Cindy for her insurance money. Audio experts were blocked by the (corrupt) judge from testifying as such.

What motive was there for Steele to kill his wife for non-existent insurance money? On the other hand, if you listen to, or read, Steele’s, “In defense of anti semitism” (an excerpt from the text is provided below, though the link to the site where the audio and text were is no longer available - I wonder why?), there was plenty of motive for Jewish interests to silence Steele.

What a jew you are

JamesUK
Not Jewish but it is like Blacks complaining about racism with problems in there own community.

DanielS
You are doing the bidding of Jews at any rate. You say WN are “complaining”, as if its trivial. But we are not “like blacks complaining about racism” around here. At MR we survey all concerns - centering on our own human ecological systems first and attending to problems and antagonists as they emerge relevant. Jews happen to be salient among antagonists in their genetic pattern and in 7 power points: finance, politics, law, religion, business, academia, media.

WN aren’t “complaining” ab. immigration and jews, we’re noting blockage to our sovereignty, destruction of our well being, deliberately imposed threat to our survival.

JamesUK
Apart from the US other western countries especially Eastern Europe do not have significant immigration to come anywhere near close to threatening the actual survival of the host countries that as I said before most are economic migrants from new EU countries.

DanielS
“Apart from the US and other western countries” .... a ‘little thing’ like The US and Western nations being destroyed. We’re supposed to shrug that off, right?

JamesUK
“especially Eastern Europe do not have significant immigration to come anywhere near close to threatening the actual survival”

DanielS
Even if we were so crass, indignant, egregious as to not care about western European nations, and if the western countries were to go under, then eventually the eastern countries would be submerged in spill-over tides of non-Whites as well. You know it.

JamesUK
most are economic migrants from new EU countries.

DanielS
You want Europeans to fight each other, like good right-wingers, don’t you?

Is that why you want to crash us together antagonistically with your EU? Perhaps you think Americans should vote for Republican neo cons and your Jewish war complex?

You think we should have gone to Hungary?

It must have been a good thing to Not do.

Go to hell.

JamesUK
Yes that did get media attention and the few media outlets that covered it admitted it looked favourable towards the organisers on the issue of free speech.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/american-racist-richard-spencer-gets-to-play-the-martyr-in-hungary.html

DanielS
That conference was too right-wing reactionary and probably played into the hands of how Jews would like us to be - the Gottfrieds, the Atzmons, the Dugins, the Jared Taylors, the scary scientistic factualizers to turn-off normal people.
........................................................................................................................................................................

Excerpt from Edgar Steele’s “In defense of anti-Semitism”

Note: JamesUK cited I.Q. statistics for Jewish success, which have been factored into equations of proportional representation in The Ivy league and professions, revealing that Jews are vastly overrepresented by dint of nepotism, political and religious propaganda, financial and legal manipulation.

Beneath Every Rock

Supposedly, Jews account for 2-1/2 per cent of the American population. Why, then, is half the student body at Harvard and most every Ivy League college Jewish?  Statistics simply are not kept as to the percentage of Jews in this profession or that, but when was the last time you saw a doctor whose name did not end in “berg,” “man” or “stein?”  I’m not sure I have ever met a psychiatrist who wasn’t Jewish.  On the other hand, have you ever seen a Jewish farmer or mechanic?

Rarely do I appear in court, but the guy on the other side of the courtroom - and often as not, the judge, too - is Jewish.  And, it is incredible the deference paid by the bench to the Jewish DA, or whoever, sitting at the other counsel table. There has been more than one trial where I could have merely phoned in my participation, for all the good it mattered that I was even there.

So many complain about what bankers, especially the international and central bankers, are doing to our country. Yet, hardly anybody seems to have noticed that those people are almost exclusively Jewish.

Behind Every Tree

They are everywhere in the media, particularly Hollywood. Talking heads, movie stars and the like. ...Pay attention and you will be amazed.  The names won’t always be a good guideline, however, given how many changed their names at the turn of last century, so as to meld into the American population of that time.

Jews seem to comprise about 50% of America’s population, based upon those in visible positions. Looks can be deceiving, like Harvard, where they are drawn to those positions by their money, their intelligence and, most importantly, the indulgence of their kosher comrades.

People refuse to notice the Jewish hands on virtually ever power lever in the US federal government. Or at the helm of virtually every media organization that exists, and throughout the executive and editorial ranks. And, it’s not just Jews that control America - they are Zionists.  Even Ariel Sharon, Israel’s current Prime Minister, has said openly, “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it” Oct.‘01. Problem is, most of us seem not to know it

The Power Behind the Throne

Books have been written on the subject, but, essentially, a group of late 19th-century elites, comprised of Rockefeller, Morgan and others, mostly Jewish, established an organization designed to consolidate their control of America and, eventually, the entire world. It was called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Offshoots, such as Bilderbergers, have formed since, but the objective has never slipped from their sight.

One of the first acts of CFR’s members was to survey the newspaper field, the sole mass media of the time, and conclude that purchasing control of only 25 major newspapers would give them effective control of news dissemination. They bought those papers and, since then, many, many more. Today, members of these shadowy organizations literally run virtually all of the media, control the political structure in America, much of world business and are firmly in control of world banking.

That is why the two political parties in America have become identical, so as to provide us rubes with the illusion of throwing the rascals out come election time, yet with the same old agenda not missing a beat. Did you really see a difference from Bush to Clinton to Bush? They knew what NAFTA would do to America’s manufacturing base and job structure, yet both parties embraced it. We’re firmly on path to one-world government. America writ large, but the America now being molded without individual civil rights, not the America of the 20th Century. And it’s largely kosher.

Read about The “Israeli Spy Ring Scandal” for a particularly chilling look into the extent of the Israeli spy ring recently uncovered in America and Israel’s extensive US telephone network ownership.

It is not the purpose of this essay to prove Jewish control of America. There is ample material available on the internet for those who wish to prove it for themselves. Rather, it is my purpose to show that there are perfectly valid and understandable, even laudable, reasons for being anti-Semitic. Resenting those who manipulate us on a daily basis, against our own best interests, is primary among them.

  ....
Hate laws are a singularly Jewish invention being foisted upon an unsuspecting public, so as to preemptively remove the possibility of criticism of themselves. Often written by the ADL, the organization that lobbies for their adoption, state by state, the laws are designed to stifle dissent and speaking out.

Don’t Joke with Islam… or Jewish Interests, International Banksters, Neoliberals, Christian idiots, right-wing idiots, Negroes, mudsharks, La Razza…

“Unlike its predecessor Hara Kiri, Charlie Hebdo, the liberal-libertarian newspaper, has become one of the organs of the dominant ideology. They can recognize their own.”
                                                - Alain de Benoist

They recognize their own..
                                              Free speech for who?
                                     

As such, Tanstaafl’s account is even more descriptively accurate of those behind the policies of Charlie Hebdo - they’re an organ of “neoconservatism” (a Jewish platform):
http://age-of-treason.com/2015/01/13/charlie-hebdo-and-what-heebs-do/

And they recognize their own under attack..

READ MORE...