[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.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
A Nation on Fire: America in the Wake of the King Assassination
Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2009
“Events have unmistakably shown that any municipality in the country with a Negro population is susceptible to a racial outbreak.” — From an FBI report dated May 26, 1967
Since becoming a Counter-Currents writer, I’ve come to see that the mainstream historical narrative of the 1960s is unique in how incorrect the conventional understanding of it is. What I mean by backwards is this: The big issue of the 1960s, the Vietnam War, has today shrunk to insignificance. The Vietnam War did have an impact on American culture, but not nearly as much as, say, the US Civil War, or even the Spanish-American War of 1898. But what was small in the 1960s is big today. Then, the 1965 Immigration Act appeared to be an unimportant administrative adjustment; but today, immigration is the Queen of all social issues. Meanwhile, the “civil rights” revolution and the resulting backlash is the unacknowledged King of all social issues.
Officially, “civil rights” triumphed in the 1960s through “civil disobedience,” but that is a misunderstanding. “Civil rights” triumphed in the 1930s and 1940s as a result of a number of desegregation cases and Negro uplift policies. In the 1950s, whites began to resist, to the point that “civil rights” gains could only come at the point of a bayonet. And by the late 1960s, whites built new (but shakier) segregation defenses.
“Civil disobedience” in itself was a problem in that it is not really civil at all. It is a tactic of breaking small laws to achieve a political objective, similar to how terrorism is used, and it can quickly get out of hand. Essentially, blacks had a standing green light to riot throughout the 1960s, probably due to the fact that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations responded very quickly and favorably to any Martin Luther King civil disobedience stunt.
Additionally, the morality of “civil rights” is backwards. The movement had the appearance of morality to the vast majority of whites in its early days, but by 1965 black violence, basic black social pathologies, and black militancy had swept away the moral façade. In other words, the riots which followed Martin Luther King’s assassination were the last stand of the “civil rights” movement, not the painful birth of some sort of post-racial paradise. The story of these riots is told in Clay Risen’s page-turning book, A Nation on Fire.
MLK was not a genius & civil disobedience isn’t civil
A Nation on Fire is the first mainstream book on the “civil rights” movement that I’ve read that even gets close to hinting that the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was not the saintly genius that the mainstream media made him out to be.[1] Risen describes King approaching his final days in Memphis thusly:
The past few years had not been kind to the civil rights leader. Since his success at Selma and the resulting passage of the Voting Rights Act in ‘65, King had been trying to broaden the scope of his movement, both in reach – out west, up north – and scope – taking on housing discrimination, poverty, and the war. But the public, the media, and the political establishment increasingly saw him in a negative light, a has-been who achieved great victories earlier in the decade but had no answers for the new issues of the day. Even Walter Fauntroy, his loyal Washington representative, called King a “spent force.”[2]
King was a spent force with no answers for newer issues because the consequences of his ethos had clearly created out-of-control problems by 1968. At the start of the 1960s, blacks dressed well, appeared to behave well in public, and honest white “civil rights” sympathizers could imagine that they and the blacks were fighting “unjust laws” with “civil disobedience.” By the end of the 60s, a considerable number of blacks were dressing like revolutionaries and impossible to appease in any way.
As a result, by the time of King’s assassination, the white public had started to sour on “civil rights.” The turning point was the Watts Riot of 1965. Watts wasn’t the first black riot of the 1960s, but it happened in a place where the economy was good and there was no long-standing history of “racism,” as in the South.[3]
As word trickled out from Memphis that King was dead on April 4, 1968, sub-Saharans began to riot on an enormous scale across the nation. Risen gives a personal account of the situation: His mother had to flee her office in Washington, DC with other whites in a packed bus. Her father, a soldier with eyesight so poor they wouldn’t send him to Vietnam, was pulled away from his desk job, given a rifle, and told to defend his base against rioting blacks.
Burning down cities they cannot build & how a riot works
Risen focuses most of his narrative on the riots in Washington, DC, but he also examines what happened in other places, such as Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore. The roots of the riot were in black migration from the rural South. Washington, DC, along with all the great cities of the North, had experienced a large growth in their black populations since the First World War. The trend accelerated through the 1940s. In all cases, in those places where blacks showed up in massive numbers, jobs fled – especially after the Second World War. Risen shows the statistics regarding jobs, black migrants, and so on. From this, he draws a Tragic Dirt conclusion: That is to say, blacks were arriving in a geographical location where jobs were leaving through some sort of natural process beyond anyone’s control. It is probably more accurate to conclude rather that blacks in large numbers create an environment where an advanced economy cannot function.
But even as problems with blacks increased in the late 1950s and early ‘60s, only the radical whites seemed to notice. George Lincoln Rockwell, for example, frequently talked about what blacks were doing to DC. Nobody listened. And in the meantime, blacks began to gain control over DC’s city government. At the time of King’s assassination, DC’s mayor was a black named Walter Washington. He pioneered DC’s Africanized political ecosystem which only ended when the Bush I administration got rid of Marion Barry in an FBI sting operation in 1990.
Black management of any institution has the same effect as untreated high blood pressure on a person’s body: At first there are no symptoms, and then one’s heart explodes. In 1968, Washington, DC was beginning its slide into becoming a slum, which persisted until the end of the Clinton administration. The key thing is that black leaders – unless they are being supported by whites, and even then it’s iffy – make a series of small, bad decisions that compound over time. Mayor Washington was only part of the problem, though. The main issue was that the large black community made many small, bad decisions every day. And when word came that King was dead, blacks in general made a terrible decision regarding how to respond, and DC’s black mayor was quickly overwhelmed.
When the riot broke out, DC was unprepared. Civil servants did not know what to do, gave and received conflicting orders, and panicked. Whites simply fled. The roads became parking lots. Some drivers abandoned their vehicles and walked to the suburbs. The DC National Guard was called up, and federal troops from the “Old Guard” were deployed to protect the Federal District. The “Old Guard”’s regular duties were normally purely ceremonial, but their mission quickly shifted in the face of the scale of the violence. The Pentagon called up support troops from the other bases around DC to serve as infantry. The Marines were called in. The Maryland National Guard deployed to DC’s edge to keep blacks from burning the suburbs.
The deployment expanded from DC to other cities, especially Baltimore, involving massive troop movements. Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne were rushed to cities around the nation, and the III Corps Artillery was deployed, along with brigades from the 5th Mechanized Infantry Division. Baltimore is unique in that the whites organized on their own during the riots: Armed groups of whites drove into the city and fired at rioting blacks, while white shopkeepers armed themselves.
Over the next few decades, sociologists would study the riots and offer explanations of how these riots begin and get out of hand. According to them, a social disturbance becomes a riot due to a “Schelling incident” – one in which people in a crowd realize they will be rewarded by that crowd for violence rather than punished for it. In DC, the Schelling incident occurred when the crowd saw looters break the windows of the People’s Drug Store. Soon, DC was in flames. Most of the deaths in the riot were the result of arson.
700 years is a long time, many centuries, many generations, many people who saw how Seville flourish thanks to the commerce of the Spanish Empire, becoming the centre of Southern Spain.
Seville is truly a city with an interesting history, with important and curious events. Today’s event has gone unnoticed by the majority of Spaniards and Sevillians, as well as most of the media. Perhaps in the eyes of Sevillians, this event is only considered part of the “innocent” game called multiculturalism.
The title doesn’t lie, Seville, a city with a deeply Catholic tradition, will have its first mosque in 700 years, after the Reconquista. Many people will ask “what’s wrong? It’s just a simple mosque.” And to be honest, putting myself in their place, I would also ask myself, “What’s wrong with a mosque?”
Nine years ago, there was an attempt to put a mosque in the Sevillian neighbourhood of San Jerónimo. The response of the neighbours was blunt: NO!
As you can see in the video, the reaction was clear. Of course, this protest was labelled as islamophobe, xenophobe, and others “phobes” from the list the regressive left uses to attack patriotism.
But now, it’s different.
The new mosque
In the scene of this political theatre, enters a man called Kanoute, a former player of the football team Sevilla FC, which is raising 300,000 euros for the construction of the mosque.
“I do it to save the Islamic worship of the city,” he declared.
In a country like Spain, which the Muslim population has reached 4% and continues to grow under this Socialist government, the opening of this seemingly unimportant mosque will open the appetite for the construction of many more. The same trend has been seen in Barcelona for example.
With the capitulation of another city in Spain, its European roots begin to tremble. Attacks on Spanish culture can be seen daily. Me your writer, a simple Spaniard and Sevillian, cannot but help remembering the words of Ferdinand III of Castile, who reconquered the city:
“I did not rid this city of the Mohammedan power so that hundreds of Moors stay here to practice their infidel rites.”
The Spaniards do not forget, the spirit of the Reconquista is still alive.
As a Remain voter to begin with, Theresa May’s Prime Ministership looked more and more like a grand filibuster to obstruct Brexit indefinitely. And, as Allister Heath said over at the Daily Telegraph, 22 May 2019:
Theresa May at the top nearly 3 years
As prime minister, following David Cameron
6 years before that, as home secretary
Failed to win 2017 general election outright, but stayed PM
Remainvoter in the 2016 EU referendum
Brexit dominated her time at 10 Downing Street. (PA)
There may be a chance of a Tory-Brexit Party pact as some point, but zero chance the supporters of Mrs May’s deal or her allies will be spared the full force of Nigel Farage’s Party.
The reality is that nobody who believes in Brexit can possibly vote for Mrs. May’s deal. There is no longer any excuse, no longer any room for doubt. Mrs. May’s latest version is an admission that the established parties will never allow us to leave the E.U.
It is an attempt to entrench the status-quo, the symbol of a broken West Minster stuck on a doom-loop.
In its denial of democracy and its decision to put process above substance, it is also a provocation.
It tells Brexiteers that they will only get change if they elect new MP’s from new parties; many will oblige, keen to usher-in fresh, more responsive politics
Mrs May became emotional as she concluded her announcement.
Theresa May has said she will quit as Conservative leader on 7 June, paving the way for a contest to decide a new prime minister. In an emotional statement, she said she had done her best to deliver Brexit and it was a matter of “deep regret” that she had been unable to do so.
Mrs May said she would continue to serve as PM while a Conservative leadership contest takes place.
The party said it hoped a new leader could be in place by the end of July. It means Mrs May will still be prime minister when US President Donald Trump makes his state visit to the UK at the start of June.
Mrs May announced she would step down as Tory leader on 7 June and had agreed with the chairman of Tory backbenchers that a leadership contest should begin the following week.
On Friday, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt became the latest MP to say that he would run for the party leadership, joining Boris Johnson, Esther McVey and Rory Stewart, who had already confirmed their intentions. More than a dozen others are believed to be seriously considering entering the contest.
The prime minister has faced a backlash from her MPs against her latest Brexit plan, which included concessions aimed at attracting cross-party support.
Andrea Leadsom quit as Commons leader on Wednesday saying she no longer believed the government’s approach would “deliver on the referendum result”.
Mrs May met Home Secretary Sajid Javid and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt at Downing Street on Thursday where they are understood to have expressed their concerns about her proposed withdrawal bill.
In her statement on Friday, she said she had done “everything I can” to convince MPs to support the withdrawal deal she had negotiated with the European Union but it was now in the “best interests of the country for a new prime minister to lead that effort”. She added that, in order to deliver Brexit, her successor would have to build agreement in Parliament.
“Such a consensus can only be reached if those on all sides of the debate are willing to compromise,” she said.
Mrs May’s voice shook as she ended her speech saying: “I will shortly leave the job that it has been the honour of my life to hold. The second female prime minister, but certainly not the last.”
“I do so with no ill will, but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love.”
“Dissident Discourse /w Majority Rights - Ethnocentrism Extravaganza”
The title would probably more accurately read “Daniels Speaks with Faustian Spirit”, who, with the help of a bit of right wing trolling from the chat, “an extravaganza” of right wing trolling, offers up challenges to the platform that DanielS is promoting. I was expecting a more unfettered occasion to set out some ideas, and not particularly delighted to deal with challenges from right wingers, particularly those advocating Christianity/Jesus, Nazism/Hitler, Scientism/Might Makes Right etc., but with Faustians’ platform of Dissident Discourse and his obvious concern for our common cause and enemies of the interests of European peoples, the underlying will is good to allow our discourse to move on its course to agreement, alignment and coordination.
PRIME Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal has been rejected by the House of Commons with a 149 majority leaving the future of Britain’s exit from the bloc in complete turmoil.
A hoarse-sounding Mrs May suffered a defeat of 242/391 with a majority of 149 at tonight’s meaningful vote on her deal. She had lost her voice after a late-night flight to Strasbourg to demand concessions on her deal with European Commission president Jean Claude Juncker last night. Though it was not enough to win over both hard-line Brexiteers and MPs that back a People’s Vote. MPs could now vote to delay Brexit following an amendment by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, tabled last month, allowing them to do so.
No deal Brexit BOOST: Jacob Rees-Mogg explains ‘exception’ of no deal
Mrs May also said that “voting against a deal does not solve the issues we face”.
European Commission president Mr Juncker had already warned that if MPs turned down the package agreed in Strasbourg on Monday, there would be “no third chance” to renegotiate.
MPs will vote tomrorow on whether they want to leave the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration - a no-deal Brexit.
Should MPs reject that, there will be another vote on whether Parliament wants to seek an extension to Article 50 - delaying the UK’s departure beyond the current March 29 deadline.
But Mrs May stressed that would not resolve the divisions in the Commons and could instead hand Brussels the power to set conditions on the kind of Brexit on offer “or even moving to a second referendum”.
Brexit Horror: Remainers plot take-over.
Theresa May at the top nearly 3 years