Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 10 January 2017 07:26.
Mirror, 9 Jan 2017: “Racist vlogger who became global YouTube sensation unmasked”
...etc., so the headline and the hit piece reads.
On 5 June ‘15, Millennial Woes came to Majority Rights and left a comment * insisting that his link be removed from this site because I, DanielS, would not accept his friend, The Truth Will Live, a.k.a. (((Ruth))), as a part of our struggle, let alone as having a place to define our terms. I consider his position in her regard to have been naive at best, but probably more like an unsavory deal with the tentosphere. I really don’t approve of this defense of the Jewish tent of the tentosphere. In addition, his going along with the Alt-Right’s attribution of “THE Left” as the enemy is unacceptable; finally, he is annoying in coupling this attempt to join the Alt-Right in muting our platform, while perhaps garnering some of our ideas and auguring to misdirect them.
Even so, the doxing and smearing of him by a purportedly objective news source, The Mirror, is way out of line. Even I don’t think he is remotely that bad or that he deserves that. But then again, beware the right, Alt-Right too - it’s an unstable arrangement - the right has come back to bite countless adherents and those with misfortune to find themselves on the other side of their reactions over the years.
Posted by Millennial Woes on Wed, 03 Jun 2015 12:27 | #6
Ruth, who has the channel “The Truth Will Live”, is a close friend of mine. She and I speak regularly about the key issues of the alt-right, including the JQ, and she is on-board with all of it. In particular, residing in a Somali-heavy area of the US, she has to deal with their shit just like the rest of us do, and she hates it and opposes immigration from the Third World as wholeheartedly as any of us do.
To repeat, she is a close friend of mine and I know that she is a good, kind, decent person. I think it is wrong of you to besmirch her unless you have some evidence that she is a fake.
PS. And no, she didn’t ask me to write this post! AFAIK she doesn’t even know about this article.
Posted by Millennial Woes on Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:41 | # 14
I understand your position, and I do understand the danger. However, I cannot stand by as my close friends are bad-mouthed when they have done nothing wrong whatsoever. (Note that you conflate Ruth’s statements with Rachel Haywire’s, when they are two very different people.)
Though I am grateful to your site for linking to my channel this last year or so, I ask you to remove that hyperlink now. I do not want to be associated with a site, however worthy it might be, that insults and dismisses my own friends.
Thank you, MW.
Posted by Millennial Woes on Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:26 | # 17
DanielS “One extreme is to do the Christian services bit, helping Africans to no end. The other is to not care.” She says it is wrong and extreme because they cannot take care of themselves well enough and it is the White man’s burden to help them.
This golden rule is one of the most Jewy things imposed on Whites from the Bible.
MW: That’s very strange, because it was I, a non-Jewish, non-religious, British-native white guy, who introduced Ruth to the idea that the White Man’s Burden is a real thing - having arrived at this belief myself without any help, Jewish or otherwise. I came up with it, of my own volition, based on my own observations of my (white, non-Jewish, non-religious) people.
DanielS If you are that defensive of these women then we would view your link as a bum steer anyway.
MW: I don’t even know what that phrase means. All I’m asking for is decency. Without a shred of evidence, you are ascribing a calculating, deceitful nature to a woman who simply doesn’t have such a nature. If defending her makes me “defensive,” so be it.
Millennial Woes argues that I conflate Ruth and Rachel Haywire, but I do not. In fact, my position with regard to Ruth was developed with interviews of her separately. Nor was I picking on her without evidence or for trivial reasons - it is most important to separate White advocacy from her sort of influence. For the record, I did not conflate Ruth’s position with Rachel’s: Ruth wanted to define the left for us, to encourage Abrahamism, she said that she believes in “the White man’s burden” (that we owe help to Africans); and in the end she would pursue an agenda to have us treat Jews as a part of our cause, having kindred issues and concern for Western culture. But for a myriad of reasons, it is critical that there be White advocacy platforms free of Jewish influence (active influence, in particular), however benign it may appear (and the reason to discriminate against this one (((Ruth’s positions))) wasn’t really particularly hard to discern).
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 07 November 2016 05:37.
The New Observer had previously run stories (such as this and this) more critical of Trump’s candidacy.
Such critical distance from support of (((Trump’s candidacy))) would be more in line with the position here. However, the truth is that both candidates suck from an ethno-nationalist perspective - that means that Hillary sucks too.
While it is likely that TNO is being maneuvered into a position of controlled opposition regarding the election, they have reason to believe that they are bucking the trend of other “newspaper” endorsements -
Whether it is bucking the system or being co-opted successfully as controlled opposition in regard to the election 2016, let’s give a hearing to TNO’s argument now, having drifted toward endorsement of Trump though it has.
- I present the article in full with the compensation of including their fund raising pitch at the end -
TNO, “Crooked Hillary’s Crimes: A Partial List”, 6 Nov 2016:
Hillary Clinton has now committed far more legal misdemeanors than even impeached President Richard Nixon, and would, under normal circumstances, be barred from running for office.
The controlled media, however, continues to protect and promote Clinton because they hate Donald Trump so much, and because they are as corrupt as she is.
The recent announcement by the FBI that emails linked to Clinton’s illegal email server had been found on disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer, showed once again that Clinton had clearly breached the law in this regard.
At the same time, the string of WikiLeaks revelations from the Clinton Foundation have shown without question that the Clinton-controlled State Department engaged in blatant “pay-for-play profiteering” and arms deals with all manner of states and companies.
The WikiLeaks-Podesta email revelations show that Clinton and her team are utterly ruthless and prepared to engage in the most corrupt, underhanded, and nasty manner.
Apart from smearing Latinos as “needy,” the emails reveal that the Clinton team think that Catholics are “stuck in medieval times” and show that Clinton aides bartered with plutocrats for Secretary of State Clinton’s face time on the basis of cash donations.
As revealed in the anti-corruption website’s video tapes, Clinton’s staff have bragged on film of provoking violence at Trump rallies and bringing in voters by bus to cast illegal ballots.
In addition, a Project Veritas Action investigator caught Molly Barker, the Director of Marketing for Hillary Clinton’s national campaign, knowingly breaking campaign finance law by accepting a straw donation from a foreign national. Contributions from foreign nationals are illegal under federal election law, and straw donations (contributions made in the name of another person) are also illegal.
Zero Hedge, “John Podesta’s Best Friend At The DOJ Will Be In Charge Of The DOJ’s Probe Into Huma Abedin Emails” 31 Oct 2016:
Now that the FBI has obtained the needed warrant to start poring over the 650,000 or so emails uncovered in Anthony Weiner’s notebook, among which thousands of emails sent from Huma Abedin using Hillary Clinton’s personal server, moments ago the US Justice Department announced it is also joining the probe, and as
AP reported moments ago, “vowing to dedicate all needed resources to quickly review the over half a million emails in Clinton case.”
In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” assistant attorney General Peter Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.
Just the Facts @JTF_News
#BREAKING Senior DOJ official sends letter to lawmakers responding to request for more information about email review.#8days 9:36 PM - 31 Oct 2016 99 99 Retweets 67
So far so good, even if one wonders just how active the DOJ will be in a case that has shown an unprecedented schism between the politically influenced Department of Justice and the FBI.
In other words, the best friend of John Podesta, Clinton’s Campaign char, at the DOJ will be in charge of a probe that could potentially sink Hillary Clinton.
For those who missed it, this is what we reported previously:
The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the US Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.
The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures. The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant. The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.
As the Daily Caller noted, the dinner arrangement “is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices.” As one former U.S. Attorney told the DC, the exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department.
The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.
“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.
“The kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.
Kadzik’s role at the DOJ, where he started in 2013, is particularly notable. Kadzik has helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.
It gets better because, as we further revealed, if there is one person in the DOJ who is John Podesta’s, and thus the Clinton Foundation’s inside man, it is Peter Kadjik.
Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”
Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal. As deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky. In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with Clinton.
Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it.
Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation. But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was inaccurate at the time. “He did lie to me,” Podesta said about Clinton in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Lewinsky probe. Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the fiasco.
Podesta had been promoted to Clinton’s chief of staff when he and Kadzik became embroiled in another scandal.
Kadzik was then representing Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who was wanted by the U.S. government for evading a $48 million tax bill. The fugitive, who was also implicated in illegal trading activity with nations that sponsored terrorism, had been living in Switzerland for 17 years when he sought the pardon. To help Rich, Kadzik lobbied Podesta heavily in the weeks before Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001. A House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that “Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.”
The report noted that Kadzik contacted Podesta at least seven times regarding Rich’s pardon. On top of the all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had doled out more than $1 million to the Clintons and other Democrats prior to the pardon. She gave $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign and another $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library.
Kadzik’s current role
In his current role as head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, Kadzik handles inquiries from Congress on a variety of issues. In that role he was not in the direct chain of command on the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department and FBI have insisted that career investigators oversaw the investigation, which concluded in July with no charges filed against Clinton.
But Kadzik worked on other Clinton email issues in his dealings with Congress. Last November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation.
In a Feb. 1, 2016 letter in response to Kadzik, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis noted that Kadzik had explained “that special counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the Attorney General when an investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice would create a potential conflict of interest.”
DeSantis, a Republican, suggested that Lynch’s appointment by Bill Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney in New York may be considered a conflict of interest. He also asserted that Obama’s political appointees — a list which includes Kadzik — “are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.”
It is unknown if Kadzik responded to DeSantis’ questions.
Kadzik’s first involvement in the Clinton email brouhaha came in a Sept. 24, 2015 response letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in which he declined to confirm or deny whether the DOJ was investigating Clinton. Last month, Politico reported that Kadzik angered Republican lawmakers when, in a classified briefing, he declined to say whether Clinton aides who received DOJ immunity were required to cooperate with congressional probes.
Kadzik also testified at a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the issue of classifications and redactions in the FBI’s files of the Clinton email investigation.
Finally, it is also worth noting that Kadzik’s wife, Amy Weiss, currently at Weiss Public Affairs worked on the 1992 Clinton/Gore Campaign as a Press Secretary, and Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee, and a White House Deputy Assistant to the President/Deputy Press Secretary to President Bill Clinton.
* * *
And now it seems that Kadzik will be in charge of the DOJ’s “probe” into Huma Abedin’s emails. Which is why we are a little skeptical the DOJ will find “anything” of note.
Editor’s comment: The Bonnier family who dominate Swedish media, are Jewish. Would Irena Pozar ever call Israel too Jewish or ‘too White?’
In the article titled, “Our Whiteness – a democracy problem”, she says:
“I was in Gothenburg recently to attend Media Days 2016 [a media conference],” adding, “The whole day went well. I survived two air flights and being on stage.”
“But oh my God how it was White. EVERYWHERE. After a quick check in the seminar program it became clear: I could count the number of Swedes with foreign names on one hand (and then it became fingers over).”
“To the world, Europe and Sweden has trouble with this problem [of being too White], we know. The media industry has a problem with it, we know very well.”
“A completely white and the Western perspective is a sleeping pill.”
“The lack of diversity creates blind spots that in the long run can be dangerous.”
“In 2016 diversity is not only an opportunity but a necessity. Otherwise, all the fine words about freedom of speech and democracy are nothing.”
For about a year now, Sweden has legally denied that race exists. So how can it be “too White?”
Anti-Whites always do this. They say race doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t matter, then they complain about it being “too White” and in need of “diversity.”
If “diversity” is so great, surely Africa would be the first to place in need of “diversity”, and the last place would be White first world countries.
But you see, “diversity” is their excuse to eliminate White majorities. It’s a code word for White genocide.
Carl-Johan Bonnier, Chairman of the Board.
Having already planned to reinforce some information on the Bonnier family’s control of media in Scandinavia and Sweden in particular, I belatedly happened upon the somewhat more recent story (3 May 2016) above by White Genocide Project and Red Ice, discussing chutzpah on the part of the Bonnier family’s director of social media, Irena Pozar. With that, I thought it might be good to introduce the issue through that story before giving some of the historical background of the Bonnier media empire as provided by yet other sites.
With the profusion of information that the Internet facilitates it becomes less the task to continually find new information than to feature, focus, cull and coordinate available research so that ethno-nationalists are sensitized to patterns and some concrete facts that they can operate on and follow as their practical concerns allow.
That is the case with Jewish media influence in Sweden and other parts of Scandinavia by way of the so called “Bonnier” family and other Jewish media owners. This information is dated in part and is not presented as if a neutral disposition toward Jewish media ownership in Scandanavia, but is rather meant to lend support for those concerned to defend native European nationals against the well established liberal motivations of Jewish politics as it is laced in their media. It is the kind of feedback that has to circulate within our hermeneutic circle - viz., in our carousel and archives:
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 16:33.
A major source of liberalism, but at 86, you have to wonder if the YKW aren’t willing to throw him under the bus and if he, in turn, wouldn’t be willing to take a fall.
DAILYKENN.com—2,500 files stolen from Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
One revealing document was published online this week.
Entitled “Extreme Polarization and Breakdown in Civil Discourse,” the document names renowned critics of Islam. Among those are stellar anti-Muslim crusader Pamela Geller. Frank Gaffney and Robert Spencer were also targets of the group, reports say.
In the memo, Open Society Foundations (OSF) executives lamented that progressive groups and members of the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian-American (AMEMSA) community lacked “high quality opposition research” to combat “anti-Muslim xenophobia and to promote tolerance.”
Some warn of an impending global government. It appears that government already exists and George Soros is its head of state, providing the government’s funding from his personal holdings.
Soros’ global government includes a CIA-like spy network, it appears.
I call it ‘Sorocracy;’ rule by George Soros. And this, my friends, is why globalism wants to control the Internet.