[Majorityrights News] KP interview with James Gilmore, former diplomat and insider from first Trump administration Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 05 January 2025 00:35.
[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
Ancient Polish grave could reveal a chilling 5,000-year-old story of how men returned from a hunt to find the women and children of their extended family had been ruthlessly massacred.
- A mass grave of 15 individuals, mostly women and children, was found in 2011
- The remains were part of the same, extended family and they died violently
- It is thought the men of the village were away when an attack was launched
Imagery credit: National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)
A prehistoric burial site has revealed the brutal massacre of the women and children of a large family in Poland 4,800 years ago. That’s the theory of researchers who have analysed the remains of a group of 15 prehistoric people uncovered near the village of Koszyce (just northeast of Krakow).
The tragic burial site is strangely lacking adult men and experts believe the women and children in the grave were murdered while the men were away.
They suggest they returned from a trip, perhaps a hunting expedition, to find their families slaughtered at the hands of a violent rival group.
The surviving warriors carefully arranged the remains of their loved ones , with mothers cradling their children and accompanied with jewellery and pets.
A prehistoric burial site has revealed the brutal massacre of the women and children of a large family in Poland 4,800 years ago. That’s the theory of researchers who have analysed the remains of a group of 15 prehistoric people. Pictured: Bones of the dead
Excavations in 2011 uncovered the mass grave and the smashed bones and caved skulls within revealed their violent deaths.
Analysis of the bones of the dead showed they all came from a group of interrelated families who lived around 2800 BC
Four of the women were buried alongside their children and, of the few men in the pit, four were half-brothers. The heart-ache for those who buried the slaughtered family members is expressed in how they are positioned, researchers suggest.
[...]
Genome analysis found the people to be farmers and the research, published in PNAS, says the Corded Ware people may have been to blame for the heinous act.
The groups shared DNA but the Corded Ware society was thriving and expanding rapidly across Europe, and this may have led to the slaughter of the neighbouring people.
The Corded Ware people are believed to have interbred and merged with the Yamnaya folk, who have recently been heralded as the most violent group of people to ever live.
Yamnaya culture emerged roughly 5,00 years ago in the European steppe and spread rapidly across the rest of the continent, destroying cultures and interbreeding.
Ancient DNA reveals these migrants were well nourished, tall and muscular. Some archaeologists also argue that the warrior tribe consisted of skilled horsemen.
‘It looks like they lived mostly on meat and milk products,’ Kristian Kristiansen at the University of Gothenburg told New Scientist. ‘They were healthier and probably physically quite strong
The globular Amphora people lived between 3400 and 2800 BC in central Europe.
They existed at the same time as the Corded Ware people and the Yamnaya.
They were farmers by trade, raiding livestock - especially pigs.
The settlements they lived in may have been small, rudimentary and temporary, researchers have found.
The culture had impressive burials, with large pits and gifts to accompany the dead.
These would often include animal remains and sacrifices.
It shared DNA with the Corded Ware society which was thriving and expanding rapidly across Europe.
These people also bred and mingled with the invading Yamnaya from the west, who were ruthlessly efficient muscular killers that swept across the continent.
The Lies Will Try to Live (but they’re not White, they’re Jewish), Abrahamic universalism and interchangeability at work through a Christian woman with mixed race kids and a Mulatto...
At 16:42: Ruth, a.k.a., “Vivian Veritas” a.k.a. The Truth Will Live” (the lies will try to live, but they’re not White, they’re Jewish), refers to Melchy Zedek in the chat for friendly prompting. I had been suspicious of Melchy Zedek ever since I undertook to discuss the DNA Nations and disentangle Jewish language games (notably against “the left”) with Ecce Lux, and Melchy immediately tried to argue against it and propose Christianity instead. Maybe I misunderstand Melchy and he has good but naive intentions…
Anyway, (((Ruth))), a.k.a., “Vivian Veritas” a.k.a. The Truth Will Live”, says at 16:42:
“Well Melchy said in that chat and this is funny because I was actually going to mention it…. he mentioned MTV.
And it’s funny, because I was actually going to mention Brittany Spears.
It’s kinda funny, I didn’t realize until recently, how actually controversial Brittany Spears was kind of first coming onto the scene…
..and actually like, I went back and watched some of her videos….
like some of the early ones are actually petty tame.”
It is so predictable that Ruth would say that (didn’t you just know she would say that? ....“pretty tame”).
... Brittany Spears going on about how her loneliness is killing her and passively acting like she can’t help herself as a giant black guy slam-dunks a basketball…
Vivian (Ruth) adds, “I don’t think religion should be about your people (race)”...
John Bolton spearheading P.N.A.C. and going to show that even (((1/8th))) can be toxic.
Journalist Explains John Bolton’s Push For ‘Aggressive Use’ Of American Power
NPR, 2 May 2019: New Yorker writer Dexter Filkins says President Trump’s current national security adviser is a hawk who sees America as “a colossus operating anywhere it wants.”
TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. President Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton is known as a tough-talking hawk. A new article about him in The New Yorker is titled “John Bolton On The Warpath.” My guest is the author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dexter Filkins, who’s a staff writer for the magazine. He’s joined us many times on the show, dating back to when he covered the war in Iraq.
Bolton is President Trump’s third national security adviser, after Generals Michael Flynn and H.R. McMaster. Trump was familiar with Bolton’s views because Bolton had made hundreds of appearances on Fox News as a guest, and then as a paid commentator. On Fox, he’d advocated for military strikes on Iranian training camps and for forced regime change in North Korea. Earlier in Bolton’s career, he served in the George W. Bush administration as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs and as U.N. ambassador. He advocated for the invasion of Iraq and told Filkins he still thinks the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was correct.
Dexter Filkins, welcome back to FRESH AIR. So as you point out in the piece, the Trump administration has no permanent secretary of defense, no secretary of homeland security, no ambassador to the U.N. What does it mean in terms of the power John Bolton has now in his role as national security adviser?
DEXTER FILKINS: Well, the national security adviser, just by virtue of the geography of that job - it’s in the West Wing. It’s right down the hall from the Oval Office. It’s an incredibly powerful position. You know, Bolton sees the president every morning. He sees him or he talks to him in the evening. It’s just, the proximity of that job to the presidency gives the occupant of that job just an enormous amount of power. So just on its face, you know, you’re in the pole position there. But I think in this administration because, you know, it’s a revolving door in the rest of the government pretty much all the time - Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, he’s gone. There hasn’t been - no replacement has been named so there’s an acting secretary of defense. There’s no ambassador to the United Nations. There’s no secretary for homeland security.
So it’s just kind of a big vacuum. I think it’s fair to say that makes his job even bigger and gives him even more influence than you would ordinarily have. So I think in that administration, when you’re talking about foreign policy, you’re basically talking about John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, and that’s it.
GROSS: And are they on the same page on most things, Pompeo and Bolton?
FILKINS: I think so. I had a funny conversation about Pompeo and Bolton together with an unnamed Western diplomat who knows them both. And they said, look, you know, Pompeo is really only interested in what Trump is interested in. So you can’t really sit down and talk about the world with him. Bolton, on the other hand, you can talk about anything. You can talk about aid programs in Africa, and he’s well-briefed. He knows about it. But Pompeo has a much more political outlook.
GROSS: So you’re saying Pompeo is there to amplify Trump’s views. Bolton has very strong views of his own.
FILKINS: Yes, he does.
GROSS: So the title of your piece is “John Bolton On The Warpath.” I know he’s a hawk. Does the piece imply that he’s going to lead us into war?
FILKINS: No, but I think it fairly raises a lot of questions. And I think the basis of the piece is this, which I was kind of surprised to find - this divergence of world views between Bolton, on the one hand, who’s been a hawk his whole life. He’s for aggressive use of American power. He’s advocated bombing North Korea. He’s advocated bombing Iran. And then on the other hand, to the extent that President Trump has a world view, it is he wants to stay home. It’s America first. He’s pretty close to being an isolationist. He doesn’t want to - you know, he doesn’t want to partake in this kind of entire international architecture that was set up after the Second World War, whether it’s the World Trade Organization, or NATO or EU. He doesn’t want to pay for any of that stuff, and he doesn’t want to get involved.
So Trump, I think it’s fair to say, doesn’t really want to launch new military operations. They do not see eye to eye on things. I tried to kind of, you know, figure out what it is they talk about when they get together (laughter) for that reason.
GROSS: If Trump and Bolton have such opposing world views when it comes to the possibility of military intervention or war, why would Trump choose him? Why did he choose him?
FILKINS: Well, I think there’s - that’s a really good question. I think there’s two reasons for that. One is that, you know, I think he’s, Bolton, is kind of emotionally appealing to Trump. You know, Bolton was a very highly paid analyst on Fox News. He was on there few times a week. One of the revelations is - for me was I got to look at Mr. Bolton’s financial disclosure, which you’re required to submit for a job like that. And yeah, there was lots of stuff in there. So I think he was being paid $600,000 a year - this is just part of his income, but - $600,000 a year to be on Fox. And so every night, he’s banging away, talking tough. And I think that appeals emotionally to Trump. He’s like, he’s a tough guy. Plus he just sees him all the time. ‘Cause they didn’t really know each other very well.
I think the other reason is there were - H.R. McMaster had been the national security adviser before John Bolton. And there was a kind of a pretty large group of Trump allies who had decided that McMaster had to go. They didn’t like him. They thought he wasn’t supportive enough of Israel and of, you know, the current leadership there. And so they pushed him out. I mean, I think it’s fair to say they lobbied very hard to get him out, and they worked pretty hard to get Bolton in. So I think it was a confluence of those two things.
GROSS: What did Bolton advocate for as a highly paid commentator on Fox News?
FILKINS: (Laughter). Well, he, as I mentioned, he - and I went through a lot of stuff that he said on the air. And, you know, I think he’s finding - I should say, before I answer that question - I think he’s finding, you know, it’s a little different when you’re in power, as opposed to being out of power. But on Fox, talking tough - strike North Korea, if necessary, before they acquire an ICBM capability. Strike Iran in various, you know, various ways and in various contexts. That’s, like, at a minimum. And support Israel in its kind of what I think is a covert or actually pretty hot war that’s going on with Iran and Syria.
So really aggressive use of American power. But I think even more than that, not just - you know, not just dropping bombs. I think that Bolton’s worldview is he’s extremely skeptical of international agreements, whether they’re treaties or, again, the whole kind of architecture that was built by the United States over the past 70 years. You know, whether it’s NATO, or the EU, or the U.N. or the World Trade Organization, all those things which, you know, that’s the world we live in. And he is - and these are, you know, treaties and commitments, and bilateral agreements, multilateral agreements. He’s deeply skeptical of all those things. And he says, essentially, in - he has said this on Fox News, but he’s been very articulate about it in his writing, which is, every time you sign a treaty or a multilateral agreement, you give up a little bit of your sovereignty. And so I think he sees - his view of America is as a kind of colossus operating unilaterally wherever it wants. And, you know, if you pick up friends along the way, great. But they’re not going to be your friends for long. ‘Cause there’s no such things as friends in the international system. There’s only interests. And only interests endure. And so don’t get sentimental about it. Just carry on. And I think that it’s a very unsentimental view of the world that he OK. But Trump fell in love with…
Daniel Sperglord and Mangina-in-black enjoy pounding each other’s gay asses!
DanielS:
Captainchaos, while you are trying to deride mancinblack as effeminate for supporting me and MR, why don’t you instead question the wisdom of those who expect Whites to drop all concerns for every other antagonism to our system and attack the ‘pathogen’ ....markedly, it is not going to help us to separate and achieve autonomy from the pathogen if we do not also address our naive susceptibility to the pathogen or deliberate, traitorous introduction of it to our system that happens typically through vulnerabilities and entry by liberal/right wing thin or even pseudo warranted objectivism; also typically a reaction to the contradictory language games that YKW are playing in order to keep our people associated with the right, its rational blindness, mystification, confusion, short shrift of social accountability (viz. even to our people) and with it, disruption of our social systemic homeostasis? - obviously one of the chief aims of the pathogen is to break through systemic defense. Thus, it is obviously valid and important to look at our system and its vulnerabilities.
In short, it is going to be hard to take-on an enemy full throttle while you’ve got people confused, thinking you’re doing wrong, or naively “clearly” thinking that you are wrong because they are abiding by right wing/liberal (their lefts are our liberalism, rupturing our unionization when pitted against our bounds) language games, or outright stabbing us in the back because right wing pseudo objectivity serves to “excuse” why it is that they take the liberties or pay-offs afforded, and “why” we are getting destroyed in their abiding language games as “just a fact of nature” that they have no part in aiding and abetting.
I’ve been looking at this problem since the early 90s, and started to bring it to a double entry with the YKW as the chief problems to our social systemic homeostasis in 2009 ..and have been cultivating it since.
Now, regarding “pathological altruism” (the Taylor, MacDonald thing, circa, what? 2011? I never paid much attention to it) I only suggested that it may have been their naive attempt, even a misdirected attempt to look at our part, as it would likely be (misdirected), still caught up in right wing objectivism by its very means of “description and diagnosis”, but to suggest that I was part of misdirection and not taking the YKW seriously enough because I also believe it is necessary to address vulnerabilities and other antagonism (which will usually lead to their being organized to imposition upon us by YKW, true), and the fact that I recognize serious errors in Hitler’s philosophy and regime (misdirected and misdirecting headlong into disaster for Europeans, as his right wing premises would), are things that I, and Majorityrights, deserve credit for in service of European peoples, not harassment and denunciation.
And isn’t it a perfect example, wouldn’t Trump’s vanity just have him lap-up objectivist flattery and have the YKW walk right into his system, knocking his daughter up, directing his campaign to undo the Iran Deal, get him elected, and move right into Oval Office meetings to set his administration’s agenda?
John Bolton spearheading P.N.A.C. and going to show that even (((1/8th))) can be toxic.
