Supreme Court until Scalia (bottom row, second from the left) died and left one vacancy. Note that there are three of (((them: Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan))) on this court and no W.A.S.P.s.

       
(((Brandeis))) was (((first))) - (1916 - 1939). He met with resistance but made his way in with Jeffersonian objectivism, not actively invoking race, but focusing rather on economic injustice.

       
        (((Benjamin Cardozo was the second on the Court (1932 - 1938)))

       
(((Frankfurter))) was the third on the Court (1939 - 1962))). He was interested in more active advocacy of non-Whites, but needed a shabbos goy to act as the “activist” maverick: hence he birthed the strategy and the term, “activist court,” by contrast to “restrained court.” Frankfurter would pose as “restrained;” and then incite the gentiles to “heroic activism” through an “activist” Court - spearheaded by Earl Warren, who Frankfurter called “the dumb Swede”, concerned that Warren would take the bait too eagerly and cause reaction to his headlong activist court. Earl Warren did take the bait headlong but there was no successful reaction - most of the really significant anti-White laws were passed under his activist court: 54 Brown, 64 Civil Rights, 65 Immigration, 68 Housing Act.

       
        (((Arthur Goldberg (1962 - 1965)))

       
        (((Abe Fortas (1965 - 1969)))

The three sitting members are:

       
(((Ginsburg (1993 - ))). How many Jews are enough? A tearful Bill Clinton nominated her - first Jewish woman on the Court. Her first statement was in regard to her ((Brandeis-like objectivism))) - “nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics.”

       
        (((Breyer (1994 - )))

       
        The Supremely unqualified (((Kagan (2010 - ))) got there by way of (((nepotism))).

......

The President nominates Supreme Court candidates - when confirmed, they occupy one of the most powerful positions in the world.

Scalia’s passing has left one Supreme Court vacancy of the 9 seats. At least two other, but perhaps three more Justices, are likely to change during the next Presidential term.

These facts give the next President a great deal of influence to determine the direction of 9 of the most powerful people in the world - it can swing the court to a more thoroughly liberal direction not known since the Warren court; or it can take a more “conservative tone” - although really, The Constitution binds the court to liberalism in the form of civil individual rights as opposed to group rights. (((The media))) and neo-liberals frame the discourse of Supreme Court Justice selection as representing an important choice between liberalism and “conservatism.”

However, there are still some significant decisions even though the overall discourse is liberal.

       
Obama nominee, (((Merrick Garland))) - Garland’s family were persecuted for ‘no good reason’ what-so-ever, so they fled to The U.S.

At (((NPR))), (((Jeffrey Rosen))) discusses the (((first Jewish Supreme Court Justice))), (((Brandeis))), and the importance of the coming Presidential election on the make-up of the Supreme Court - as many as 4 of the 9 seats can change in the next Presidential term.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/07/481076322/revisiting-the-tenure-of-supreme-court-justice-louis-brandeis-the-jewish-jeffers

It’s impossible to underestimate the importance of this election on the Supreme Court - vote for the candidate whose vision of Constitution most coincides with your own.

There is a potential for a Court with a liberal make-up not seen since the Warren Court.

Issues at hand:

Affirmative action

Voting rights

Voter i.d. laws

The future of free speech

Privacy

Surveillance drones - warrants required or not?

So nationalism’s window of opportunity in Austria is closed for the time being.  Norbert Hofer has failed by the narrowest margin in his bid to become president of Austria.  It was the bravest of attempts.  But yet again the anti-white, anti-nation Establishment has succeeded in pulling enough votes together to beat off the challenger.  Nationalism awaits its breakthrough in the West.

The spotlight now shifts to Britain and the struggle – nationalist as well as patriotic - for sovereign nationhood, democratic right, the ability to make our own laws, and to control our own borders, all of which is at stake one month from now in the June 23rd referendum on membership of the European Union.

Here, too, the Establishment, in the form of Remain, is calling-in every favour and using every governing-party trick it possibly can, every conceivable negative argument, however overblown and improbable, to terrify the voters over the economic and security consequences of Leaving.  We’ve had Treasury talk of runs on the pound if we leave, as well as run-away inflation, and a year-long recession with a million job cuts.  We’ve had talk of being locked out of European markets for a decade, of more terrorism on our soil, even of a new world war.  We’ve had Obama making threats, the EU Commission president making threats, the IMF wagging its corrupt finger.  We’ve had the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chamber of Commerce, corporate CEOs by the hundred, charities, the arts, the unions, the National Health Service, the environmentalists ... you name it, every one of them has proved only too keen to lecture the British public on how to vote.  It’s amazing what self-interest can do.

Remain, of course, is only about protecting its own programme of internationalism, and the wealth and position that provides.  But the bulk of the electorate appears to be by no means engaged or interested enough to understand that.  Over the last three weeks or so the polling companies have found consistently for the efficacy of Project Fear.  There are significant differences between the results they obtain by telephone polling and on-line polling, the former showing anything up to an 18% lead for Remain (albeit taken from a London poll), and the latter generally a lead of about 5%.  Tonight the Telegraph is wittering on about a collapse in the vote for Leave.

Leave, certainly, has proven unable to get its message across - in no small measure because the Tory Establishment operation which won the official campaign designation is (a) reactive and chaotic in its campaigning methods, (b) institutionally hostile to Nigel Farage and UKIP, and (c) won’t give more than a cursory coverage of immigration, which is the principal issue in the public mind and the greatest weakness of the Remainers.  It would rather lose the referendum than see UKIP take credit for victory.  It is a classic case of putting party before country.

So what will happen on June 23rd?  Well, the last national election, on May 12th 2015, demonstrated that the polling companies do not necessarily know how to model the British electorate.  I’ve been reading the threads at Anthony Wells blog, UK Polling Report, and it is astonishing to me how little support for Leave is expressed therein, in contrast to the newspaper page-polls and threads which show support for Leave over Remain at about 60/40 on the left-leaning papers and up to 80-20 on the right-leaning ones.  Yet at Wells’ blog one encounters the soft-left/liberal urban intelligentsia mouthing its presumptions with perfect self-confidence.  They all seem to be constitutionally incapable of valuing what the people value.  Ask them what they value above sovereign nationhood, democracy and freedom, and they won’t answer, because they haven’t thought about it before and they don’t know.  But these are the people who are telling us what we think.  I am wondering whether they are remotely capable of understanding who and what the Leave voter is, and why he or she has such a passion for change (ie, because of people like them).

We’ll find out who is right, anyway, in one month.  My money is still on Leave, but then I am a stubborn soul, not to be shifted.  I just hope and believe that we are all of that mind.

          The Sermon on The Mount Ensconces The Golden Rule of Altruism

Majorityrights prefers to deal with verifiable reality as opposed to speculative theory and faith based systems of rules as we look after the interests of our people. We are looking after genetic groupings and genetic interests as key criteria, even if these are not the only important verifiable criteria to keep track of our peoplehood and that of others. Rationale and rule structures are another criteria for that purpose.

While existence is of course equiprimordial to genetic interests, to secure it for any span and legacy requires rationale and varying degrees of sophistication to negotiate complex rule structures of interaction. “Rules” (1) are the term of common currency that we will use for the logics of meaning and action that people use to negotiate interaction and these complex, protracted exchanges beyond episode, close personal relationships in yield to maturity of their full social system; and its relation to other social systems.

For those of us who are coming from this kind of perspective, where we perceive ourselves as rationally and empirically grounded, it is difficult to understand someone like pastor David Blackburn, his love of Jesus that would have him not only forgive, but want to share his love of Jesus with the men who raped and murdered his wife and unborn child; but to my knowledge, he is at least not hoping to get them released from prison.

It is even more difficult to understand European peoples allowing, even welcoming foreign incursions into The U.K., Sweden, France and Germany - it is difficult to fathom the mindset of a Merkel, who would destroy our European peoples in service to non-Europeans. But there is one rule, convoluted rule, that they have in common and makes their position intelligible to us despite their apparent irrationality.

The Golden Rule is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, which is a central text in the Christian faith. It states: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. There are similar instructions in many other cultures.

Despite receiving high respect and wide popularity, the rule raises critical questions. What is the recommendation more exactly, and is it good advice?

This post will prepare a discussion of the work of Jan Tullberg - viz., the difference between the golden rule of benevolence as opposed to the silver rule of reciprocity - as it applies to assist in the reconstruction of a necessary consensus of moral rules among European peoples and for coordinating our relations to others.
____________

There is a consensus among advocates of European peoples that in essence we seek to secure the existence of our people. There is much dispute over how that is to be done…

READ MORE...

Although we might wonder, even if we were able to do away with Abrahamic religions, would this not attenuate the signal of the sheeple destined for a mystery meet future? I.e., would we lose a clear signal of those we want to separate from? Perhaps that is not our greatest concern as the genes and our agency speak loudly.

Some images speak loudly too - just impossible to resist.

We are vigilant of the misguidance of Christianity and other right wing rule structures. It is a good time to circle the hermeneutic to Islam for a moment. Particularly when witnessing how the BBC seeks to institutionalize and normalize the idea that Islam has had a long cultural, intellectual and demographic place along The Silk Road and into Europe, it is time for a de-institutionalization and de-normalization of this particular son of Abraham and its coercion.

We are vigilant of the J.Q., its patterns and its occupation of seven major choke points - including the choke point of religion which birthed Islam. Lets take a look at the notion that Islam is not coercive of itself.

Thanks to TT Metzger for forwarding this story. He adds: WE ARE BORN FREE, BUT ENSLAVED BY RELIGION!

Renowned scholar IQ al Rassooli is Liberty GB’s expert advisor on Islam. He is an Iraqi-born native Arabic-speaker who has dedicated much of his life to the study and critical analysis of Muhammad, the Qur’an, Hadiths, Shariah, Arabic and Islamic history -

“There is No Compulsion in Islam”

The phrase, “There is No compulsion in Islam” has been handed out by Muslims to non-Muslims that I find it best to compile some facts about this misconception by both non-Muslims and Muslims, to clear up this misinformation. Whether the phrase soothes the conscience of Muslims or they feel that this justifies Islam as a religion of Peace like Christianity, or that they truly believe that it is so, it is totally untrue. It also stumps non-Muslims into silence because of the lack of knowledge of the Quran. So it is essential that somewhere this phrase is properly analysed. The phrase is part of the verses of a couplet which must be read together to make any sense. But there are also other interpretations/abrogations that I will explain later.

[Quran, Sura 2.256]

“There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing”.

[Quran, Sura, 2.257]

“Allah is the guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light; and (as to) those who disbelieve, their guardians are Shaitans who take them out of the light into the darkness; they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide”.

Both verses together certainly convey a different message than the typical apologist snippet from Sura 2:256. The pair of complete verses show the Quran’s respective policies for Muslims (believers) and non-Muslims (disbelievers). Believers are warned not to slip into disbelief, and disbelievers are warned to become believers — or else.

In other words, according to this passage, THERE IS COMPULSION IN ISLAM, despite the initial “no compulsion” statement. Sura 18:29, itself, bears some similarities to the Sura 2:256-257 pair:

Quran, Sura 18:29:

“Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!”

The policy in the Quran does not appear to be “Believe it or not,” but instead is “Believe it or else!”

The damnation of disbelievers in Sura 2:257 and Sura 18:29 is consistent with Allah’s policy throughout the Quran. There are over 250 separate damnations of disbelievers in the Quran. True believing Muslims, on the other hand, are promised with the reward of Paradise in the Hereafter. Despite its 250+ separate condemnations of disbelievers to hell-fire for the crime of disbelief, the Quran says many times that Allah is “Forgiving” and “Merciful.”

The Quran says that disbelievers who do good works do so in vain, because they are going to hell anyway (Suras 5:5, 18:104-106, also 18:30, 33:19, 47:1, 47:32).

This contradicts the claim that Allah is forgiving and merciful. (Indeed, it refutes the claims that he is at all wise and just). Were these statements all made by the same author?! Given the contradictions among the statements in the Quran, what are we to make of it when we read, “There is No Compulsion in Islam”?

One way of looking at Sura 2:256-2:25 is as just another contradictory pair of propositions in the Quran. Nevertheless, it is important to consider how the verse has traditionally been understood by respected commentators. Ibn Kathir’s tafsir (commentary) on verse (ayah) 2:256 explains:

“(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, ‘Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.’ It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning.”

In other words, the truth of Islam is so obvious and clear that only a fool, an evil fool worthy of eternal damnation (Sura 2:257), would fail to accept its validity. This clarifies the probable intended meaning of the verse somewhat, but the contradictory concepts remain:

It is wrong to force anyone to become a Muslim (and other tafsirs agree on this point), but if they don’t become a Muslim, Allah will burn them in hell. But more than that, as will be shown later in this article, the Quran says that disbelievers will be punished in this world by Allah and by Muslims who are acting according to Allah’s policies (i.e., the Quran and Mohammad’s example). The only way that the disbelievers can escape these punishments in the world and in the hereafter is to convert to Islam.

As we will see, according to the Quran, there is plenty of compulsion in religion…

READ MORE...

Look in the mirror, White man, and understand that this is all your individual fault. You need to lift some weights, man up - don’t be critical of societal power and influence, assimilate black alpha male behavior, learn PUA and adjust to the R selection strategies to which these girls have become enculturated. Better yet, engage in boundless self flagellation and servitude to Mulatto supremacism. But this most of all son - blame yourself!

Ninety Two Percent

Tiffany N. Calloway, Independent, June 2, 2015

It is prognosticated that by 2050 the majority of the American populace will be biracial.

While this demographic shift in America is great for diversity and the future of racial equality we must also take into account that with the emergent trend of diversity and multiculturalism comes the delicate colloquy about the shift in cultural norms. It is well known that in the African American community fatherlessness is a major problem, 70 % of black children are born out of wedlock in the African American community.

The tendencies for fathers to be absent from their children’s lives has grown into what one can definitely call an African American cultural norm.

Due to the access to stats released by the census among many other sources, there has begun a dialogue about the growth of this paternal absence epidemic in the African American community. But the full extent of this epidemic can be lost on the public due to absence of statistics on involvement of black fathers in the lives of their biracial children as well, and the effects that can have on the biracial children in question. This study takes a more a inclusive look into birth trends, family structure, economic standing, emotional health, and paternal relationships of biracial children with African American fathers

Goals of the Current Research

1. Amassing data on the birth trends, family structure, economic standing,and paternal relationships of biracial children with African American fathers.

a. Currently there is no definitive research that ventures into this topic and for many has left them blind to the stats on this seemingly overlooked but vastly growing demographic within the United States.

2. What effects the family structure, economic standing, and paternal relationships of biracial children with African American fathers have on the children’s
emotional state.

a. Does the absence of the father have any bearing on the behavior of the child?

More specifically does the child exhibiting major behavioral problems like aggressive behavior, angry outbursts, excessive tantrums, run-ins with the law, drug use, alcohol use, excessive fighting, trouble in school, etc.when the father is absent.

Research Methods

The type of research that was used in this study is quantitative research.Quantitative research explains phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analyzed using mathematically based methods. The data was studied through observations in numerical representations and through statistical analysis. Along with questionnaires that were given out to respondents for the statistical representation of the findings in the study, interviews with the respondents were also conducted. The respondents in this study were females spanning the United States, and 3 diverse racial backgrounds that all have children between the ages of 1 - 17 whose paternal parent is African American. Participants were approached through media outlets such as newspapers, internet, and radio, most of the respondents were recruited through internet advertisements.  Participants that answered to the advertisement were asked to produce documentation that was utilized to collect and verify basic screening information regarding each participant’s race thus proving they are in fact Caucasian, Asian, or non-black Hispanic, as well as verifying the paternal parent of their child/children is in fact African American. Participants meeting the eligibility benchmarks were required to provide pertinent locators and tracing info such as cell phone numbers and contact information in order to finalize their enrollment procedures for the study. Accordingly, those who passed the requirements and were proven eligible were administered the survey. The data amassed was broken down into percentages, and the individual percentages were averaged.

Findings

Marital status at time of birth

Table 1. At the time of your child’s birth were you and the father married?

Caucasian 97% NO / 3% YES

Asian 85% NO / 15% YES

Hispanic 95% NO / 5% YES

Table 2. Did you and the father of your child ever eventually marry?

Caucasian 80% NO / 20% YES

Asian 92% NO / 8% YES

Hispanic 99% NO / YES 1%

Testing from the 92% Out of Wedlock population.

So much for statistics that show that black/White interracial marriage is exaggerated. They don’t bother getting married.

                   
              The worship of the Silk Mother is about 4,000 years old and still continues…

READ MORE...

From a Breitbart London thread:

normalgate • 42 minutes ago

It would be a pretty good film if the talking heads were not so keen to label nationalist dissent as “far right” and “xenophobic”. Nationalism is the only means to a secure existence for European peoples - something the labellers obviously don’t care about.

Daisy  • 33 minutes ago

I knew that comment would come up - that didn’t sit well with me either but I guess they wanted to appeal to people across the spectrum as much as possible and distance themselves from “nationalism” - in fact “ultra nationalism” was referred to at one point, whatever that is!

However, I think we just have to “take one for the team” and use whatever ammunition we have - it’s a good movie otherwise.

The launch of Martin Durkin’s Brexit the movie was, iconically, at The Odeon, Leicester Square:

READ MORE...