Majorityrights News > Category: Modernity

THE GAME IS OVER. THE PATRIOTS LOST: Though I cannot recommend Matt Parrott for his foolish and unwarranted misdirection away from and against the platform here, he is clever enough to turn a good phrase, as in this article, where the issue isn’t too deep for him. However, for one thing, he needs to understand that the Christards are playing a suckers game in line with propositional nationalism, and being beaten badly for it as well.

Since the time in the late 80’s when I prioritized racial interests over the entertainment of sports and music, when I do observe race mixed sporting events or statistics, I root for the individual performance of White players and against individual black players.

Over at Amren, Paul Kersey entitles an article, “Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl”

Although there is something to be said for the Patriots success while using White players in positions usually associated with black skills, as rather an expression of White selection and identity, betraying negrophila some along with its taken for granteds, the teams are still mercenary, not particularly representing a place or race. Thus, I can’t agree with his conclusion that Whites should feel ok about rooting for mixed race teams as it perpetuates the idiot cuckoldry of White fandom and support of the race mixing agenda through one of its most seductive means - visually exciting sports, adulation of athletic skills beyond merit, way beyond real world value and just reward, while ensconced in the deceptive, soothing pretext of passive objectivity.

Kersey writes:

The white quarterback, Tom Brady, along with white wide receivers Julian Edelman and Chris Hogan, white tight end Rob Gronkowski, and white running backs Rex Burkhead and James Develin, are an anomaly in the “vibrant” NFL. They have a vast overrepresentation of skilled white players who not only excel, but dominate.

[...]

With all this whooping about diversity, an anomaly does not go unremarked: the whiteness of the New England Patriots during their historic run under Tom Brady. For this year’s Super Bowl in Atlanta, all eyes are on Mr. Brady, the 41-year-old quarterback, who will be playing in his unprecedented ninth championship game in 18 seasons (this will be his third consecutive shot at the Lombardi Trophy, and Mr. Brady holds a 5-3 record in the Super Bowl).

With that, he suggests:

Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl

It’s OK to be white.

On Sunday, more than 110 million Americans will huddle around their television sets and watch the 53rd Super Bowl, a matchup between the Los Angeles Rams and New England Patriots.

After two seasons marred by black NFL players taking a Colin Kaepernick-style knee or raising a ‘Black Power’ fist during the National Anthem, television ratings slightly improved during the 2018 season.

[...]

So even if you are not a fan of the NFL, or don’t like the antics of black players who knelt during the National Anthem, there’s nothing wrong with rooting for the New England Patriots and Tom Brady to win Super Bowl 53. In a league where 72.6 percent of the players are POC, there’s nothing wrong with cheering for a team that looks a little more like you.

It’s the white thing to do.

He supplies one good reason NOT to root for the Patriots or any NFL team, here:

Ibid. That year, largely because of pressure from the owners of NFL’s 32 franchises, the league saw only a handful of black athletes—who account for 69.7 percent of the players—take a knee during the anthem. A recent poll of NFL fans shows only 24 percent of white fans strongly support the anthem protests, while 59 percent of blacks do (47 percent of white fans and 7 percent of black fans strongly oppose them). Though the kneeling stopped, the owners did create an $89 million fund for the players to hand out to “improve social justice and racial equality in our country.

Related at Majorityrights:

Seduction of NFL Films, Appeal of L.A. Rams 60’s, 70’s, dodging legacy of sports-fan cuckoldry

Our football coaches weren’t Marxists imposing black integration

(((Schultz/Starbucks vulture capitalism - governmental collusion with NGO’s and tribal interests)))

I haven’t visited Morgoth’s for several months, and not for more than a moment in over a year… but having taken a peek today, a fine comment jumped out…

Augur Mayson rendered a fine comment in response to the question of why people hate journalists.

In regard to his example that the (((media))) conveniently promulgated Harold Schultz’ crypsis, referring to him as “a white man”, Augur might have added discussion of which (((Frame Games))) spilled the beans - it is still on line: [url=The Perplexing Case of Starbucks The Perplexing Case of Starbucks) about the scheme that Starbucks is involved in, making deals with black NGO leaders in order to buy-up inner city property on the cheap and then gentrifying it to turn huge profits in sales and rent. ...while these blacks were moved in as block busters to begin with by tribal elders who benefited by driving out Whites, taking advantage of driving down property values and welfare slum lording.

A Starbucks in your neighborhood means this racket is coming to your city.

One wonders, given Starbucks property vulturism, if Trump and his cronies don’t figure into the Schultz deal - as Kumiko surmised, they are mostly about a second tier of wealth, based on real estate investment, particularly U.S., and their concerns as such.

* I took the liberty to correct the malapopriative term, “left”, for him and replaced it with what it should be - “liberal”

Augur Mayson • 6 days ago

Because journalists enhance Jewish racial crypsis, is my current reason. They’re statists posing as rebels. The major media outlets either through commingling with the state or via self-interested owners of a certain ((( race ))) typically parrot whatever ridiculous claims are coming out of the government, either about domestic social issues or correctness of foreign policy. They are not some unelected but real check against government abuses. They are attack dogs. They are megaphones for the rich and the state. They are overwhelmingly leftists liberals* and disproportionately Jewish.

For example, in America now the presidential election in 2020 is shaping up as follows: Trump for the Republicans, because it’s unprecedented for a party to not run an incumbent, unknown candidate for the Democrats, maybe Mrs. Clinton, maybe Joe Biden, maybe someone else, they have a young gay guy they’re trying to talk up now. And the only big independent as yet talked about in the media is former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who’s a Jew, who has used Starbucks to push progressive social policies. For example a few Blacks got thrown out of a Starbucks for presumed loitering; media uproar ensued, Schultz declared to do the exact opposite in future, now they have beggars out front, heroin needles in one bathroom and people giving birth in the other.

So this article in the Judenpresse in America talks up Schultz and says point blank he’s a White man.

“And at 65, he’d have to do that as an older white man who’s never run for office before and has zero national name recognition.” https://www.theatlantic.com...

False, as a CEO of a major corporation he had major exposure and name recognition only second to say Hollywood stars and politicians and media. So the journalist paints Schultz as an unknown (read: underdog, as in, a fetching backstory) and says he’s White when he’s really a Jew.

This is why I hate journalists. Plus if you have a Jewish war you’d like to wage in the desert for no good reason you can always count on the likes of CNN or the BBC to carry the load of b.s. you’re pushing.

NEW YORK: Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz, credited with taking the company from small beginnings to an international behemoth, is stepping down as CEO to focus on new high-end coffee shops, handing the reins to Chief Operating Officer Kevin Johnson.

Schultz, 63, will continue to serve as chairman of the Board and will be appointed executive chairman effective April next year. He handpicked 56-year-old Johnson, the company’s president, chief operating officer and a 7-year member of the Starbucks Board of Directors, to serve as the new CEO.

The Seattle-based company said in his new role, Schultz will focus on the “next wave of retail innovation”, design and development of Starbucks Reserve Roasteries around the world, expansion of the Starbucks Reserve retail store format and the company’s social impact initiatives.

“I will remain Starbucks executive chairman, focusing full-time on the incredible growth opportunities we have in expanding Roasteries and building out our portfolio of Reserve stores and on Starbucks social impact agenda which will be a significant part of the focus going forward,” Schultz said in an investor and media conference call yesterday.

Schultz, who was named by Fortune magazine this month in its list of Businessperson of Year is credited with doubling the company’s revenues since he returned for his second stint in 2008, surpassing USD 20 billion for the first time over the past 12 months

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/55746311.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Related at Majorityrights:

(((Frame Games))) Hardens-Up and Greg Johnson Presents His Right-Wing Rear For Entryism (as does JF)

(((Frame Games))) on ethnic component of 2008 crisis & why you need to care about identity politics

Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?

Related:

The Perplexing Case of Starbucks: Frame Games discusses Starbucks with Gariepy

DanielS goes into the enemy camp, continually hesitant, but inserts the time bombs that will bring down their campaign against White sovereignty and systemic homeostasis.

I’ve never seen Luke Ford so stressed (as I did the first time that I hung out with him briefly at the end of a hangout) and I’ve never seen him look so glum (the second time, when he gave me the floor with just him as an interlocutor). Actually, I take no delight in that. I’m sure that he felt pressure given his own position in defense of Jewry and from the Jewish friendly community around him to try to limit my message exposing the “objectivist” anti-“left” marketing campaign. Even so, I was able to say around 80% of what I’d planned - and some ideas will act like time bombs having gotten in there.

This was my first “HANGOUT” and not having opportunity to practice and get feedback as to how I might sound beforehand, I did not realize how persistently hesitant I was and how it was coming across. It was hard even for me to listen to myself the first time around in this uniquely bad delivery of mine. I hesitate constantly, but nevertheless, the content is there and I realized that the second time around listening to it - that it wasn’t all that bad for that reason. I take solace in the fact of knowing that I don’t have to speak that way and don’t usually, in normal conversation. I was in enemy territory, resources at risk, and that is cause for hesitation. But knowing that my position and resources are robust, it was alright to go ahead - I know that my program works now, it can’t be destroyed by the enemy. The best they can hope to do is distract from it, obstruct and try to bury it.

I am honestly not happy to see Luke looking so glum. It’s telling that he adds a link to Cofnas’ critique, like holy water against a goyim assault (I wasn’t impressed by Cofnas’ critique, BTW).

I come on at (2:20:47) and am confronted by Bob, the “bad cop”, the one with one dark eye-glass, lower right.

I had tested the water with him a few days before, on the evening of December 30th, in a Hangout called the “Victory of Social Justice Warriors.”

Seeing the Jewish sponsored meme that’s been promoted since 2008 - you don’t want any of that social justice warring, do you? - I saw it as occasion to join the conversation, which I do, late in the hangout (2:20:47) having just woken up (I’m in a completely different time zone).

(((Kyle))), comes on and tries to intimidate me with a strawman soliloquy

They had a little test or trap (depending upon how you look at it) waiting for me - three antagonistic, young interlocutors. One Jewish kid named (((Kyle))) was supposed to intimidate me with his brilliance. (((Kyle))) is a rather simple fellow, really, even if he can elaborate extensively on his simple cause - advocating his Jewish people (down with their program against “the left”). He interrupted my flow and straw manned me with soliloquys (he acted like I was “confused” - a typical Jewish canard), to clear up my “confusion” about Cochran, making some big deal about how I supposedly didn’t understand Cochran when he knew nothing about what I know, with my having made a few offhand, half joking remarks not intending any elaboration.

Luke Ford flanked by his good cop/bad cop

Then came a little “good cop /bad cop” pair against me. This Bob guy, goy, a Christian of the “irony bro” ilk (Irony Bro means obnoxious trolling with no pretense of trying to understand what the person you are trolling is trying to say, just bury them). Bob is the one with one dark eye glass - a flaming asshole who was attempting to bludgeon me with antagonism from the get go - “here, take this I.Q. test while you are waiting.” Sure Bob, I’ll do that. “Everything you say comes from 4-Chan” - going to show how he knew nothing about me, whipping out a comment perhaps applicable to Andrew Anglin. I have been to 4-chan briefly two or three times and derive literally none of my ideas from it; but that is the kind of immediate accusation this guy was rendering. He went on to say, “I can understand nothing you say” ...I rejoined that maybe his I.Q. isn’t high enough, idiot. (bad cop)

Salty Sage the “good cop” who tries to tell me that he’s on my side - yeah, right.

At the same time they had this other guy, “Salty Sage”, who claimed to be on my side. I don’t know where his two comments are now; but in the hangout and comments, Salty Sage would “kindly”, condescendingly, ‘re-interpret’ me for the others to understand on “friendly terms”. Then he added in the comments, that my “misdirection” (tries to turn the game around on me, as if I am the one giving misdirection, not Jewry; no, Salty Sage, I am the one diagnosing mis-direction), he tries to suggest that I am the one that is giving misdirection and that he sees it “sympathetically” as stemming from necessary contortions of circumstance..

When I called attention to the fact that Gottfried instigated this marketing campaign against “the left”, another “friend”, Ruston, said that I had a thing against Gottfried, thinks he’s great, and that everyone should read him. Then Salty Sage says he’s on my side (good cop). He groans when I say that Christianity is bullshit, then says he’s on my side (good cop Salty Sage is “on my side”, yeah right).

Anyway, that’s the context of my first hangout with Luke:(2:20:47); I make a few points that I don’t make in my subsequent talk, which is mostly me talking and Luke adding a few rejoinders. I didn’t get to say half of what I’d like to say, but the chat encouraged Luke to use the plausible excuse of my bad delivery to prevent me from subverting their position any further. Listen here: DanielS from Majorityrights talks with Luke on the topic of whether Jews are good for Western Civilization (and Europeans generally); you can listen here or Download the MP3: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593/are-jews-good-for-western-civilization - Pinned by Luke Ford.

Brundlefly

Norvin Hobbs

One of Luke‘s frequent guests, “Brundlefly” (Jewish wife, Jeff Goldblum Avitar) tries his best to put the damper on my position in the comments (which I re-post under the fold) and was probably one of those who got Luke to shut down the discussion more quickly than he normally would (Luke typically allows discussions to go on for a couple hours and I had expected to say all I had planned to say, but wasn’t given the time). Brundedlefly starts-off amicably enough, while giving away the fact that he knows nothing about me, given his surprise that I am familiar with Norvin Hobbs.

Brundlefly, 1 day ago (edited): Lmao at this guy knowing about Norvin Hobbs

After some commentators who agree with me that Jewry is NOT good for Western Civilization, things get more antagonistic and I defend myself. Only two people seem to be directly on my side, “Kat Ruby” and “Jewel Citizen”, who seems almost like Soren Renner, but I’m not sure who it is….

ARE JEWS GOOD FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION?

Iskandar
23 hours ago
No

Mephistopheles Ghost
22 hours ago
No

The Antagonist
23 hours ago
“Are Jews Good For Western Civilization?”. NO!

Sam Browne
22 hours ago
The answer is no….No they’re not.

United States of Post America
21 hours ago
Whites and Blacks have lived together in the South for 400 years.

United States of Post America
21 hours ago
Majority Rights is hard to listen too.

PersistentPatriot
16 hours ago
Are Termites good for log cabins?

Vegtam Returns
12 hours ago
If.by “good” you mean, enabling the mass invasion of Europe by hostile religious fanatics with low IQs then yes - Jews are very good!

gurugeorge
19 hours ago (edited)
Yes and no.  The question is really: are they a net good?  NAJALT, plus many great contributions to civilization have been made by Jews, so the question is whether the harm that’s been done by Jewish bad apples (as canvassed in, say, Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique ) outweighs the benefits brought by their fellows (e.g. the great academics, entrepreneurs, storytellers, technologists, etc.), or vice-versa.

The situation is rather comparable to the situation re. Muslims: survey after survey has found that while of course NAMALT, a worryingly large minority do wish ill on the host culture, or are at least willing to turn a blind eye.  It’s like that with the Jews: some good people who are very, very good, some troublemakers who are very, very bad, and a worryingly large minority who do wish ill on the host culture; so the question is whether the trade-off is worth it.  At the moment, it’s not looking good. 

All this is why wise people in the past always thought of the Jewish Question as a really, really thorny problem.  If you eject Jews from your culture, you risk losing many benefits and becoming something of a backwater; if you don’t eject them, you risk being subverted and having your culture and civilization destroyed from within.

General Patton
23 hours ago
The question can easily be decided by looking at one single issue; immigration.
Jews are, for the most part, open borders lunatics, hell bent on wrecking western nations with massive third world immigration.

Kat Ruby
19 hours ago
After listening from beginning to end, I get the impression that Luke doesn’t like you, Daniel. He uses PC gotcha, ‘you don’t like Jews’ which sets you up in a political correct world as a bad man. But Luke is civilized enough and his perspective as one of Jew’s step-brethren can be enlightening.

Brundlefly
14 hours ago
Kat Ruby probably because Daniel is so devoid of charisma that he felt like his time was being wasted.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly We’ll see if I am “void of charisma” and especially if the content I’m producing is a “waste of time”

99hoolio
20 hours ago
This guy is the anti-KMG. I don’t think I’ve heard a less fluent speaker.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
19 hours ago (edited)
It;s hard even for me to listen to my constant hesitations. It’s a shame because the content is there; but being aware of the frustrating delivery, I’ll be sure to be more fluid in the future.

rollo clevich
16 hours ago
@Daniel Sienkiewicz I now why you delivered a prepared script when you were on Sunic’s VOR show many years ago.

Brundlefly
14 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz you need to raise your energy level bud. Also the bumping microphone is distracting.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
10 hours ago
Raise my energy level? The bumps and hesitance in my presentation were due mostly to a lack of experience in hangouts. I had (and have) energy enough for much more that I need to say. You sound like Donald Trump in your low energy criticism. Don’t worry, he had enough energy level to complete the raison d’etre of his presidency - to undo the Iran Deal for his people.

Brundlefly
10 hours ago (edited)
Daniel Sienkiewicz you speak in a low monotone. You have the charisma of a paper bag. Go back and read the chat to see how the audience reacted to your presentational style.

I went back and listened a second time, and I found your perspective unique and interesting. However, your presentation is so poor that I doubt you’ll get many opportunities to share it.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago
@Brundlefly I listened a second time as well, and didn’t think it was bad the second time around; and I have much more to say. I think your perspective is overly harsh because it is influenced by the fact of your Jewish wife. It is wishfully negative therefore - “the charisma of a paper bag.” I won’t bother looking at the chat because it is full of HASBRA-like trolls,  Christians, etc. They will take as antagonistic a view of me as possible. I may not get many opportunities here to share my view some more if the likes of you and your Jewish friends can help it, but its your loss. I will go elsewhere and they will be better off for it.

Brundlefly
9 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz Lmao keep making excuses for being terrible radio. You pontificate for 25 minutes, Luke speaks for 5 seconds and you’re already cutting him off.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly I didn’t cut him off, he can speak all he wants*. I’m not making excuses. The content is there and there is more to come. I’m sorry for your predicament with your wife, but it’s not my problem. You can try disinformation on the basis of criticizing me and my style, but the content is there, it is informative “radio”, and there is more to come, probably with better style as well. 

*You’re talking about the moment when I didn’t want to be tarred with the singular idea that Jews “are parasites” In fact, I got derailed from saying that they are generally antagonistic as a pattern - a different matter from parasitism and also reason to separate from them.

AJC B
9 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz Pop a couple of Modafinils two hours before the show. Wash them down with a double espresso or two but don’t forget the L-theanine!

Brundlefly
7 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz I have no criticism of your ideas. I already said I thought they were unique and interesting. I’m offering you the constructive criticism that your presentation is bad and you should work on it if you care about influencing others with your ideas.

Regarding your poor interpersonal skills, you kept interrupting every single time Luke broke in.  Apparently, speaking uninterrupted for tens of minutes at a time in a sloth-like cadence isn’t enough for you.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
7 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly Thank you. I’m glad that you like my ideas and there are more to be heard. I have heard many intelligent things from you as well. I already readily acknowledged in my very first comment that it was even hard for me to listen (to me) for all the hesitancy in my speech (maybe because I’d “been out on the town” the night before) but whatever would be my excuse, I have already said that I will concentrate on doing better. Regarding my interpersonal skills, ultimately, Luke spoke, said everything that he intended to say and would speak every time he wanted. And that’s is perfectly fine with me.

ovfuckyou
6 hours ago
@Brundlefly “I think your perspective is overly harsh because it is influenced by the fact of your Jewish wife.” LOL

Daniel Sienkiewicz
6 hours ago
@ovfuckyou Yes, I think that motivated some of his harsh criticisms - charisma of a paper bag, snails pace, shit like that.

Brundlefly
1 hour ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz where’s the lie? You can’t refute my observations so you resort to ad hominem.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
36 minutes ago (edited)
@Brundlefly My very first comment was an acknowledgement that the presentation should have been better. I was unaware of how I was coming across with my continually hesitant speech in this, my first hangout. I said I’d be sure to do better in the future. You agreed that the content was there. ..but produced a flurry of comments under this and other comments - making ad hominum attacks ON ME: You were surprised that I knew who Norvin Hobbs was. Which means that you barely know who I am. But then you went on to draw full conclusions about me from this, my fist hangout - that I “have no charisma” - which you added to Kat Ruby’s comment below,; that I have “the charisma of the paper bag”, that you doubted that I’d get more opportunities to present my ideas because of my poor delivery” - I believe these “observations” are heavily influenced by the fact that my views are a threat to Jewish participation in White advocacy - and perhaps those married into Jewry, as you are. Recognizing the threat, the chat was probably encouraging Luke to truncate my message - I had about twenty percent remaining of what I planned to say - important stuff - would have headed off some of the misdirection that Halsey et al. were trying to put across in the subsequent podcast . But I have lots more more to say and don’t need to say it here; if you are going to insist on blocking me based on conclusions that you try to draw about “my lack of charisma” when, in fact, you know little about me. I was being attacked from the onset in my brief entry to the hangout the other day - so, the people here are not exactly rooting form me - and it is to be expected as I am in Jewish territory replete with trolls and trolling that will seize upon anything that they can to limit my message.

Brundlefly
28 minutes ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz I’m not blocking anyone. If you think this audience is hostile to your message, then you don’t understand the audience.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
1 second ago
@Brundlefly I disagree. I do understand the audience and the context.

Jewel Citizen
15 hours ago
There are two words in your title that do not belong in the same sentence let alone next to each other and I’m not referring to ”Western Civilisation”…

READ MORE...

W. Barnett Pearce

Sexists, racists, and other classes of classifiers: Form and function of “...Ist” accusations

by Julia T. Wood and W. Barnett Pearce

An “. . . ist” accusation indicts an individual as a racist, sexist, or other “. . . ist” whose thoughts and/or acts discriminate on the basis of class membership. The self‐reflexively paradoxical structure of “. . . ist” accusations precludes refutation, but response is possible. Pragmatic and moral implications of alternative responses to “. . . ist” accusations are evaluated.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 66, 1980 - Issue 3. Brief provided by Taylor & Francis Online

In late 1989, I wrote to W. Barnett Pearce to discuss his work and how it might resolve problems that I was struggling with. Noting my struggles with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ - and having compassion! - he sent me this article, so on target and deft in the manner which it handled my concerns, that it demonstrated unequivocally that his was a discipline that I needed to be apprised of. Indeed, this article provided two of the most important clues for my WN advocacy. The first being that ‘race’ is (in an important regard) a matter of classification - at very least being treated as such by people who mattered, particularly by our foes, but also by our people, where they know what is good and necessary for them. Secondly, as the blurb above hints at, our antagonists can always shift its paradoxical structure to their anti-White agenda:

Viz., if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate based on race, sex, etc. I judge everyone on their individual merit”, then they will charge you with being disingenuous, willfully ignoring “the long history of discrimination, oppression and exploitation of these groups.”

But then, on the other hand, if you take the measure of saying, “ok, lets take that into account and use, say, affirmative action to help these groups into positions in which they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and a racist by definition.

Along with that article, Pearce sent me another one regarding The Problematic Practices of Feminism: An Interpretive Critical Analysis, Communications Quarterly, 1984, with Sharon M. Rossi

- which I found ironic, that being the exact name (same year as well) of the girlfriend of mine who drove me to psychic melt-down.

Anyway, the (very helpful) gist of that article, which I’ve noted several times before, is that within the context of liberal feminism, even a well intentioned man can always be put into the wrong:

You can always be treated as either a wimp or a pig, no matter what you do as a man.

If you try to treat her with deference, gentleness, help and respect, then you can be looked upon as a wimp and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her strength, agency and autonomy.

On the other hand, if you treat her as one of the boys, respecting her toughness and autonomy, then you can be looked upon as a pig, a male chauvinist pig, not respecting the special quality of her gender, but rather a male chauvinist pig, projecting the hegemony of your patriarchical world view over all and everyone.

Discourse analysis of David Cole Stein’s (((narrative control))) as promoted through Robert Stark’s kosher forum.

Cole-Stein is going to talk about how the porn-industry is “the last refuge of political incorrectness”, how “unlike the ‘Leftist’ controlled media, it simply and objectively caters to the desires of its ‘fan-base.”

Robert Stark: This-is-Robert-Stark. I am joined here with-uh, David Cole. Uh David, great having you back on the show.

David Cole-Stein: It’s a pleasure to be back, Robert! It really is. I enjoyed our first go-round and I’m looking forward to doing it again.

Robert Stark: And I’m also joined here with my ‘Alt-of-Center’ co-host, ah, Mathew Pegus.

Stark seems to provide/be provided with a different kosher co-host every few shows or so.

Mathew Pegus: Great to be here Robert. Thank you for having me.

David Cole-Stein: Speaking of ‘Alt’, I want to apologize to you, Robert; because I know, a couple months ago in one of my Taki-Mag pieces, I kind-of mischaracterized you in my description of you ...and you were very polite about it, you were very nice about it; but I don’t like when I do that, because, number one, I don’t like to make errors in print, but also I don’t like it when people mischaracterize me or affix labels to me that I don’t want or don’t deserve. So I want to just apologize to get things started here, one on one here: I’m very sorry - I think I called you “Alt-Righty.” ...and uh..

Robert Stark: Or like “Extreme Alt-Right” or “Hard-Core Alt-Right.” ...(chuckles)

David Cole-Stein: Uh, Ok. Yeah, rub it in! Go ahead! That, that, here - here’s a man trying to like, grovel; and you take that salt and you rub-it right in! Yes, I made a grievous error, a grievous error! and I apologize for it.

Robert Stark (chuckles): So uh, lets start with your recent article, “Lessons From My Porn-Girl” ..and just as kind of an overall theme, is how pornography is the one area in our culture where one is allowed to be ah, politically incorrect. So by-basically to start things off, by ‘porn-girl’ you’re referencing this woman that you used to know…

David Cole-Stein: Well, a woman who lived with me. A woman whose porn-name is Kirsten Lee; ah, her real name is Kera. That - I’m not outing anybody, she has, she has outed herself. So this is not me, ah doing anything (coughs) like outing or doxxing. Kera lived with me for almost two years and was pretty much my partner in crime. She was twenty one when I uh, met her and uh…and I, basically, my role in her life was to try to help her out of the porn-biz. It’s a business that has never interested me but it was fascinating during that first year that she and I were together before she got out of it because by the second year she was fully out. You know the, the amazing thing about a porn girl is that once you give them free rent and utilities and food, ah they no longer feel the need to seek money; ah and well, they can just get right out of porn at that point - it’s really a miraculous formula; uh, they, they, once they don’t have any needs or bills to pay or anything like that, well getting out of porn seems pretty simple at that point.

The White Left will emphasize this point of social safety net to help prevent mud-sharkery in the first place.

Robert Stark: So, you-you touch on the theme of how pornography is the one, the one uh, aspect of media where politically incorrect content is uh, not only tolerated but promoted; and garners massive amounts of hit-counts in profits. What was the specific case with her and her ah, politically incorrect attitudes about sexual relations in porn.

Cole-Burner Stain

David Cole-Stein

David Cole-Stein: Well I, um, I was amazed, really quite amazed by the people I mixed with during that first year while she was still knee deep, neck deep in the business. Uh, on racial matters, the kind of stuff that is the most taboo for the rest of us to talk about, on racial matters porn is just insanely honest. I’m not affixing a good or bad label to it, or healthy or unhealthy - just saying its incredibly honest: White girl comes in and White girl says, “I’m not going to blow an N-word”, and uh, and the producers of porn companies are like, ‘great, you don’t do the N-word porn’. Um, Kera, my porn-girl, made most of her money doing interracial stuff, because since she was so young and very thin and kind of pristine for lack of a better word; uh, it was kind of rare to have a White girl like that do interracial because ah, normally it was the older women who put on a few pounds who’d do the interracial; uh, but for a blond girl, blue eyes, twenty one years old and looking like she’s just come right-off the fiords, it was, she made a great-deal of money at that.

Note that Cole-Stein is marking a transition, there was a time when this didn’t happen, or not much among working class women and certainly not much in the public space. It is not a time in memorial truth of societal behavior; and it’s not as if it is a sheer discovered fan base - but he’s normalizing and institutionalizing it as a given fact apart from negotiative components of societal incentive - particularly, money and a Jewish anti-White agenda.

His argument - “a fan base”, as in, “this is what people agentively want” - is up against the involuntary high contrast tropism and need to gauge genetic distance and competition, not a mere expression of a ‘fan base’ catered-to. As a high contrast tropism, it is simply harder to ignore highly contrasting sounds and sights such as interracial; and the genetic call to grapple with the incitement to competition and deal with its vast, destructive genetic distance. It doesn’t necessarily mean this is what people want. Furthermore, there are elective, i.e., not merely catered-to, non-interracial taboos that are very popular also which can serve as an antidote to the destructive effects of this “catered-to” tropism.

David Cole-Stein (continues): But yet in her private life, she would never do interracial. That was the thing that fascinated me most was how she was able to compartmentalize the racial thing. When she’s at work and she gets $8,000 to go down on a black dude, well that’s just work, she just does it. And then when we’re out in club and some black guy tries to hit on her and maybe comment on her porn, and she’ll let loose just a stream of expletives, ah ‘you friggin’ N-word’, ‘you N-word this and N-word that’ (Stark giggles) uh, there’s, huh, in her mind, its just, hey, I’m at work, I’m at work and my work right now is blowin’ a black guy; and then when we’re out at a club later that night - hey, this is my private time, I don’t want to talk to a black guy…so..

It’s at work, ‘it’s ok then’. As with Hannah Arendt, he is shifting an ethnic basis for discrimination to the abstract, individual basis of “public and private.” He is trying to create a distancing effect, ‘this is play’ - to create a distancing effect from the actual participation of the actresses.

David Cole-Stein (continues): But the whole industry was just sort of honest that way. Ah, most of the women, would - including black girls too and the Latino girls - they were just very honest, ‘cuz you can talk about race in porn in a way that you can’t in real life. It’s, I make the point in my article - where else in American society right now can pay-scale be determined by your race? I mean, if any other business, if Amazon were to say, ‘we’re going to be paying uh, White programmers more than uh, Asian ones’, well of course it would be a huge thing and I’m not advocating that at all. But in porn, White girls who are willing to do black guys make more; uh, White girls who only want to do other White girls make the least. Because that’s, that’s, hell, any White girl will kiss another White girl these days, that’s ...in my day that was barely titillating and I think everyone kind of does that now.

So.. and then the Mexican dudes, there were some Arab dudes - and they get paid different based on race ..eh that doesn’t happen anywhere else. I mean, its kind of astounding when I was looking at it. I spent years writing about racial politics and racial law and discrimination laws. And I’m like, wow, this, this is the wild-west, this is a part of the entertainment industry - and a profitable one - that has yet to be touched by that Leftist hand of politically correct social justice bullshit.

READ MORE...

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaité during the signing ceremony with Commission boss Jean-Claude Juncker. [European Commission]

“European Summit: small victory for the V4”

Visigrad Post, 30 June 2018:

On Thursday 28 and Friday 29 of June the leaders of the 28 Member States of the European Union met in Brussels for a summit to discuss in particular migration policy at a European scale. A summit that has brought some progress but which is not a decisive victory for anyone, even if the V4 can celebrate having imposed its themes and some of its solutions, as well as having overcome the domination of the immigrationist paradigm.

Belgium, Brussels – Once again, the European Union seems to be paralyzed. The leaders of the 28 EU Member States, however, all wanted to move the debate on the migration issue forward, and the discussions dragged on late into the night. Nothing helps, the migration issue is not settled, and no idea is unanimous.

The Hungarian Prime Minister represented the Visegrád countries during the V4-France meeting preceding the summit, in order to negotiate with Emmanuel Macron. The immigrationist governments, like those of the French Republic or Germany, have agreed to abandon the idea of ​​mandatory quotas for all, which is already a great victory for Viktor Orbán and V4. For the strong man of Budapest, who announced on his arrival in Brussels his willingness to put an end to massive and uncontrolled immigration to Europe and initiate remigration, the summit can not however be seen as a total victory.

Certainly, the EU is starting to be in tune with the solution proposed by the V4 three years ago, namely the setting up of refugee camps outside the EU borders – to make the registration of applications and to distinguish refugees from cheaters and economic migrants – and Frontex control over the Mediterranean Sea. But if we do not know the exact content of the negotiations, we understand that each side had to make concessions.

Quotas will only apply to Member States wishing to participate in the relocation of immigrants, but those who oppose it may well be required to participate more heavily in the funding of protection structures. Frontex should indeed significantly increase its workforce in the coming years, and that will have a cost. Slovak Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini announced that Slovakia was volunteering to temporarily accommodate 1,200 migrants to relieve neighboring countries – referring to Austria. He insisted, however, that every migrant should be accepted by the government, and that none of them could enter and stay in Slovakia without prior government control and acceptance.

No details on the technical solutions: the EU is talking about increasing aid to the countries of origin of the migrants, but the population of these countries is expected to double by 2050. And what about the migrants which will be refused in the registration camps? Many questions still arise.

A concrete progress for the Visegrád group, certainly because of the Italian pressure on the issue, is that NGOs should now stop picking up in the Libyan territorial waters migrants on smugglers’ ships, and let the Libyan coastguard do their work. This should considerably dry up the massive influx of illegal immigrants into Italy, and therefore into Europe.

So if the V4 has managed to establish itself as a key and influential trading partner, it has not – yet? – obtained total gain of cause. The fight within the EU on the migration issue has not been resolved this week.

Euractiv, “EU summit approves tortured conclusions on migration after sleepless night”, 29 June 2018:

EU leaders reached a much-needed deal on steps to tackle migration after resolving a bitter row with Italy’s inexperienced prime minister. Extended talks lasted through the night and only wrapped up on Friday morning (29 June).

Europe’s leaders got the bitter taste of what anti-system diplomacy, or creative disruption means. Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who heads Italy’s month-old populist and anti-immigration government, took the entire summit as hostage.

Conte blocked the summit conclusions in a bid to get his reluctant counterparts to share responsibility for asylum seekers landing on Italian shores.

A summit ending without conclusions would have been a political disaster with unpredictable negative consequences for the EU bloc, so the stakes were high

A relieved Merkel in backround as an agitated Conte gets a pat on the back from Tusk and Macron

Disruptive diplomacy

Former law professor Conte, until recently a virtual political unknown, came to Brussels emboldened by the announcement of an upcoming visit to Washington to visit US President Donald Trump, who has hailed Rome’s tough stance, and who himself blocked the conclusions of a recent G7 leaders meeting on trade.

The summit which is expected to end today by noon, was called the “mother of all summits”, in particular because of the potential impact on the political future of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is wrestling to preserve her fragile government at home.

“Europe has many challenges but migration could end up determining Europe’s destiny,” Merkel told German lawmakers hours ahead of the summit.

There are very few migrants arriving in Germany recently but Merkel’s conservative CSU ally warned it would send back migrants who reach the German border after having registered in other EU states.

Such a move could see a domino effect of re-introduction of internal borders and the collapse of the Schengen area.

In contrast, Italy is actually under migratory pressure from the Central Mediterranean route with significant numbers of arrivals salvaged at sea and brought to its ports. Since the new government took over, Italy has refused to let several migrant rescue boats dock at Italian ports, reopening EU divisions.

“Italy does not need more words, but concrete actions,” Conte told reporters as he arrived at the summit, adding that if EU leaders did not offer more help “we will not have shared conclusions”. Italy wants the responsibility for migrants on ships arriving on its shores to be shared out across the 28-nation European Union.

Drama at summit

European Council spokesman Preben Aamann said that after several hours of talks, conclusions on all issues from the summit – which is also dealing with trade and defence in addition to the core subject of migration – had been blocked.

“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” an Italian source added.

Other sources said the other 27 EU leaders were “astonished” and unhappy over Italy hardening its position and that “it was a very virulent discussion and everyone jumped on the Italian”.

Euractiv, “The Roundup”, 29 June 2018:

The ‘mother of all summits’ wrapped up earlier. Check out how it all unfolded here. It was all supposed to be about unity but there wasn’t even a family photo, in what seems like a new tradition.

Jean-Claude Juncker was in full House of Cards mode about his upcoming trip to Washington to try and avert an all-out trade war. Conclusions on the eurozone were, as expected, the bare minimum.

Brexit barely got a mention, except on “insufficient progress”. Emmanuel Macron has lost patience and wants a final withdrawal deal done by the autumn. British actor and repentant Leave voter Danny Dyer summed up ex-PM David Cameron’s role in one moment of genius.

One overlooked result of the summit was an agreement between the Baltics, Poland and the Commission on decoupling Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from Russia’s power grid and sphere of influence.

Euractiv, “EU, Baltics, Poland target Russia grid separation by 2025”, 29 June 2018:

The Baltic nations, Poland and the European Commission agreed Thursday (28 June) on a roadmap to synchronise the region’s electricity network with the rest of continental Europe’s by 2025 and end their reliance on the Russian grid.

The leaders of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the European Commission all signed up to a political agreement during a special ceremony on the sidelines of the ongoing European Council summit.

According to the roadmap, the deadline for concluding the synchronisation of the Baltic grid is set for 2025, using an existing electricity interconnector between Poland and Lithuania, as well as a planned undersea cable.

The latter project will only be undertaken if results of a study by the European Network of Transmission System Operators (ENTSO-E) show that it guarantees energy security, security of supply and if costs are within reason. Results due in September.

Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said that “since the beginning of our mandate, my Commission has been committed to having full integration of the Baltic states’ grids with the rest of Europe”.

Energy Union boss Maroš Šefčovič called the deal “solidarity at its best“, adding that the project will “cost us a lot from the European budget”, through the Connecting Europe Facility.

Poland’s role in the preliminary deal is crucial as it will act as the primary link between the Baltics and the rest of Europe. In March, the three countries revealed they would not support any EU sanctions against Warsaw as part of the ongoing rule of law spat with Brussels.

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki (L-R), Estonian Prime Minister Juris Ratas, Lithuanian Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis, Latvia’s Prime Minister Maris Kucinskis during Prime Ministers Council of the Baltic Council of Ministers with Polish counterpart in Vilnius, Lithuania 9 Mar 2018. [EPA-EFE]

Baltic states against EU sanctions on Poland

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have confirmed that they are against imposing EU sanctions on Poland for alleged breaches to the rule of law. EURACTIV Poland reports.

Thursday’s agreement was long overdue, after disputes about how best to cut ties with the Russian-Belorussian network stood in the way of any progress.

Estonia and Latvia initially both favoured setting up a second alternating current (AC) connection with Poland to complement the existing LitPol link but Lithuania and Poland did not support that idea, despite studies showing that two AC connections would be best.

READ MORE...

“Why Amber Rudd Quit”

ITVNews, 29 April 2018:

Rudd has chosen to resign because she felt she could not defend herself against the charge that she took her eye off the immigration ball.

Her excuse, to herself, was that her priority - for obvious reasons - was combating terrorism and improving domestic security.

But of course all ministers are supposed to multi-task, and she knew that excuse would not fly in public.

So she decided to stand down this afternoon, even before the Guardian published a leaked letter from her to the PM from January 2017 - which seemingly showed that far from being unaware there are targets for the expulsion of illegal immigrants, she actually set such a target.

  Letters exchanged between Amber Rudd and Theresa May

  Amber Rudd’s resignation letter to Theresa May

Amber Rudd signs off her letter say she will continue to work for her constituents of Hastings and Rye.

  Theresa May’s response to Amber Rudd’s resignation

Theresa May told Amber Rudd she should be proud of the way she led the Home Office.

My sources tell me that there were other such official papers about targets knocking around. And therefore she decided to quit - because she felt that MPs would simply never give her the benefit of the doubt.

Potential replacements: Hunt, Gove & Javid.

In a way she has been hung out to dry by her own department.

It is extraordinary that her officials told her, before that fateful select committee hearing last week, that there were no targets for the removal of illegal immigrants.

And perhaps less extraordinary is that other officials leaked and briefed against her - since much of Whitehall is detached from ministers.

For the avoidance of doubt, she jumped: “I am told there was no pressure from the PM.”

The point is that Rudd’s exit is arguably the most serious resignation May has suffered in her almost two years as PM. For one thing the Home Secretary is one of the great offices of state.

More damagingly for May, the policy which underlay Rudd’s doom - the hostile environment for immigration which has caused so much unpleasantness for the Windrush migrants - was May’s not Rudd’s.

In other words, Rudd’s departure strips May of her human shield.

Last updated Mon 30 Apr 2018

Gary Cohn invited to leave and be replaced by dumber paleocon.

Unite the Right to Wedge-out Paleo-Cohn

Unite the Right Charlottesville was a successful neo-con, neo-liberal operation forcing a wedge against Gary Cohn’s clever paleoconservative positioning - Trump’s tariffs on Asian raw materials was the last straw.

While I have been able to see a trap for White Nationalism in forced identity with the right generally, I could also see clearly and specifically that “Unite the Right” was a trap maneuvered by YKW and neoliberal lackey’s to force vocal and visible stigmatic association.

It was unbelievable to me that “Alt-Righters” would agree to participate in such a tactlessly forecast high profile event with some of the more traditional stigmatic right wing groupings, and thereby undo a few of the things that the Alt-Right actually had going for it - to distance itself from association with historical stigma and to be only loosely affiliated, un-united enough so as to be too hard to pin down - thus, not allowing the enemies of White Nationalism to easily categorize them negatively in association with anti-social positions; to allow populist audiences to dismiss them offhand in one fall swoop with a singular negative category - and beyond casual dismissal as non-serious, to frighten populist audiences into outright opposition for observable potential in nefarious, unaccountable religious, scientistic and neo-Nazi association and intent.

However, Kumiko has penetrated this to a more perspicuous theoretical overview.

Behind “Unite The Right” and its confrontation by “Anti-Fa” was an orchestrated wedge issue, encouragement of Trump to take a neutral stance toward “the Nazis” and “The Alt-Left, who were ‘to blame, too’, blame and good people on all sides.”

Kudlow was born and raised in New Jersey, the son of Ruth (née Grodnick) and Irving Howard Kudlow. His family is Jewish. He once served as chief economist at the investment firm Bear Sterns before he was fired in 1995 when he entered rehab to treat a hundred thousand dollar a month cocaine habit. Kudlow has repeatedly failed to forecast economic trends. In December of 2007 as the sub prime mortgage market began to unravel, leading to the deepest recession since the 30’s, Kudlow wrote, there’s no recession coming, the ‘pessimistas” were wrong… it’s not going to happen. The Bush boom is alive and well. It’s finishing up it’s sixth consecutive year with more to come.

Neocons and their Neo Liberal corporatist sellout allies would have been opposed to Gary Cohn and any efforts to hold their businesses in The U.S. against their profits, and to prevent a more thorough YKW and corporatist, feudalist exploitation of Asia; as opposed to sovereign industrial development by Asian corporations in Asia.

Trump’s conciliatory stance toward “Nazis” was encouraged by Mnuchin to drive a wedge against Cohn, who’d find that intolerable; with that be driven off by the internationalist left, recognizing a paleocon U.S. protectionist all too competent to run a neo feudalist operation against Asian labor.

Cohn hung-on in the Trump administration in hopes of being appointed Federal Reserve Chairman. That didn’t happen and the final nail in the coffin of his strategy happened when Trump proposed tariffs on raw materials of steel and iron from Asia - if you’re looking to exploit Asian labor as a feudalist, you don’t want to force them to grapple into lateral transmission (sovereignty), forcing them to develop industry and capacity to machinate their own raw materials.

Cohn was “too competent” in his capacity to run a feudalist international operation; and had to make way for a less competent and more compliant paleocon bracket, viz. Larry Kudlow - having cut his teeth under President Reagan, a protege of Frank Meyer’s paleocon movement.

”Tillerson’s Sacking Will Shock America and the World - but Delight Israel.” ...“Mike Pompeo’s impending move to secretary of state is sure to result in a much more hawkish and confrontational U.S. policy towards Iran.”

To complete the Zionist, neo-fuedalist enterprise, Trump also needed to get Tillerson’s obstruction out of the way, defensive as Tillerson was of the Iran deal (which liberalizes Iran as opposed to yielding to Islamic reactionary/ Abrahamic comprador control); he had to make way for the administration’s more ardent Zionist imperialist agenda - to undo the Iran deal is far more ably pursued with anti-Iranian hawk, Pompeo.

Finally toward that end, look to the possibility of the partly Jewish John Bolton to be placed in charge of the National Security Council - a historically instrumental position for those looking to initiate wars from The U.S. platform. Bolton is notoriously war mongering toward Iran and he is among the few people to be interviewed and seriously considered by Trump to a position to wield decisions over the matter.