Majorityrights News > Category: Greater Israel Project

Related at Majorityrights: Stuxnet, the most sophisticated piece of malware ever seen, devised for just one specific target.

Related at Majorityrights: As Kumiko Predicted: Bolton appointed to Alt-Lite/Right/Trump Admin coalition w Israel. Next up Iran.

Related at Majorityrights: John (((1/8th))) Bolton.

“More blacks, more dogs and more Irish.”

Hyper-Whites with Hyper-Privilege: Jews Are Losing their Status as Persecuted Victims

11 May 2019 by Tobias Langdon, Occidental Observer:

Jonathan Portes is a Jewish economist and a big fan of mass immigration. In collaboration with the Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche, he was central to New Labour’s successful conspiracy to open Britain’s borders to Eastern Europe and the Third World. The conspiracy was very bad for Labour’s traditional supporters in the White working-class, but very good for the rich Jewish businessmen who funded Tony Blair and dictated New Labour’s policies.

Inflammatory nonsense

But while Portes (pronounced “Port-iz”) believes in open borders, he also believes in closed mouths. In other words, he’s a big fan of censorship and doesn’t like Whites discussing racial differences and the effects of mass immigration. When the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton was sacked from a government committee for alleged anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism, Portes welcomed his departure and condemned him for peddling “inflammatory nonsense,” “tabloid-level ignorance and straightforward falsity.” He then went on to peddle some inflammatory nonsense of his own when he praised the heavily Jewish “Race Relations Act of 1968,” claiming that the Act “outlawed direct discrimination in housing or employment, as exemplified by signs saying ‘No blacks, no dogs, no Irish’.”

“More Blacks, More Dogs, More Irish”: SJWs exploit an urban myth

That’s how hate-filled the White English were in the 1950s and ’60s, you see: when they were offering houses or rooms for rent, they put up signs saying “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish.” Thousands of signs up and down the land. Well, hundreds, anyway. Well, they were a common sight. So common, in fact, that there’s no solid proof that they ever existed. The Irish Studies Centre (ISC) at London Metropolitan University (LMU) has a single photograph of “somewhat uncertain” “provenance” donated in the 1980s. And when the academic Steve Bruce was researching the topic in the 1990s, he “tried without success to find one and had to fake one for a book cover.” Writing in 2015, Bruce issued a “plea to Guardian readers. If “No Irish” signs were as common as is asserted, there should be plenty of them remaining in private collections, local archives and the like. … Can we please see some?” No, we can’t. Instead, we need to have faith. Dr Tony Murray, Director of the ISC at LMU, says that: “Ample evidence exists in numerous oral history interviews with both Caribbean and Irish migrants that such signs existed well into the 60s.”

An urban myth

No, that’s not “ample evidence”: it’s anecdotage. I don’t believe that such signs ever existed. They’re an urban myth peddled by people who, because they hate the English, want to believe that the English are haters. Yes, there is solid proof that English people put up signs saying “no coloureds” and “no West Indians.” But I don’t think such signs were proof of “hate.” Blacks are much more likely to be bad tenants than Whites are. Everyone who has dealings with Blacks learns this. For example, the BBC exposed non-White Asian landlords in 2013 for “discriminating” against Black tenants. Back in the 1950s, the notorious Peter Rachman (1919–62) installed violent and noisy Blacks to drive White tenants out of houses he wanted to buy or convert into flats. That’s how the English language acquired the handy word “Rachmanism,” meaning “the exploitation and intimidation of tenants by unscrupulous landlords.”

Peter Rachman, an unscrupulous Jew from Poland

That definition is from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, which describes Rachman as a “London landlord.” In fact, he was a Jew from Poland, part of the post-war influx of Eastern European Jews that also brought us the mega-fraudster Robert Maxwell (1923-91), a Jew from Czechoslovakia whose real name was Binyamin Hoch. It’s remarkable how the tiny Jewish community have supplied the world with so many financial crooks and confidence tricksters like Rachman and Hoch — compare Bernie Madoff and Michael Milken in the United States. But if you do remark this pattern, you’ll be in serious trouble. Noticing racial patterns is strictly forbidden in the intellectual Flatland of the modern West and in Britain there are now strict laws against signs like “no coloureds” and “no West Indians.” And who can we thank for these laws, which ended the right of free association and free control of private property? It was Jews like Anthony Lester and Jim Rose, who “founded the Runnymede Trust to combat racial prejudice and promote policies for overcoming racial discrimination and disadvantage.”

Predation was ended by expulsion

I described the work of the Runnymede Trust in “Barons of Bullshit.” It has an Orwellian name, because Runnymede was where, in popular legend, freedom-loving barons forced tyrannical King John to sign Magna Carta and grant his subjects protection against the monarchy and its allies. As Francis Carr Begbie has pointed out at the Occidental Observer, when the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta was celebrated in 2015, there was no mention of “two crucial paragraphs” in the charter that sought to protect gentiles against “the Jews” and their financial wiles. Patterns of Jewish predation were obvious in Britain many centuries ago, but they abruptly ended in 1290. That was when King Edward I issued an Edict of Expulsion against Britain’s Jews and they had to depart for the European mainland.

Most settled in Spain, Germany, Poland and Itlay (Venice, of course, had its own Jewish Ghetto).

The edict was not overturned until 1656.

Edward’s Edict: Jews were expelled in 1290

Jonathan Portes and other Jews would call Edward I a “hater.” I’d call him a pattern-recognizer who acted for the benefit of his White Christian subjects. But the English monarchy was briefly toppled in the seventeenth century by Oliver Cromwell, who allowed Jews back into Britain. When Jews came back, so did Jewish predation, as Charles Dickens noted when he created the Jewish master-thief Fagin in Oliver Twist (1838). I’ve also argued that Dickens created a Jewish villain in the poison-dwarf Quilp of The Old Curiosity Shop (1840) and that M.R. James attacked both Jews and Cromwell in “The Uncommon Prayer-Book” (1921). Dickens himself said: “Fagin in Oliver Twist is a Jew, because it unfortunately was true of the time to which that story refers, that that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew.”

That’s more hate, Portes and other Jews would say. I’d say it’s more pattern-recognition. Dickens was a genius because he was so good at recognizing social, psychological and cultural patterns and then re-creating them in his stories, often embellished or exaggerated for comic or satiric effect. The Jewish genius, by contrast, is for creating seductive ideological patterns that aren’t based on reality even as they pretend to offer deep insights into reality. Jewish ideologues like Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Franz Boas were masters of smoke-and-mirrors, and their seductive ideologies all contributed to the egalitarian cult that rules the modern West.

[The rest of the article by Tobias Langdon is at TOO]

The Lies Will Try to Live (but they’re not White, they’re Jewish), Abrahamic universalism and interchangeability at work through a Christian woman with mixed race kids and a Mulatto...

At 16:42: Ruth, a.k.a., “Vivian Veritas” a.k.a. The Truth Will Live” (the lies will try to live, but they’re not White, they’re Jewish), refers to Melchy Zedek in the chat for friendly prompting. I had been suspicious of Melchy Zedek ever since I undertook to discuss the DNA Nations and disentangle Jewish language games (notably against “the left”) with Ecce Lux, and Melchy immediately tried to argue against it and propose Christianity instead. Maybe I misunderstand Melchy and he has good but naive intentions…

Anyway, (((Ruth))), a.k.a., “Vivian Veritas” a.k.a. The Truth Will Live”, says at 16:42:

“Well Melchy said in that chat and this is funny because I was actually going to mention it…. he mentioned MTV.

And it’s funny, because I was actually going to mention Brittany Spears.

It’s kinda funny, I didn’t realize until recently, how actually controversial Brittany Spears was kind of first coming onto the scene…

..and actually like, I went back and watched some of her videos….

like some of the early ones are actually petty tame.”

It is so predictable that Ruth would say that (didn’t you just know she would say that? ....“pretty tame”).

... Brittany Spears going on about how her loneliness is killing her and passively acting like she can’t help herself as a giant black guy slam-dunks a basketball…

Vivian (Ruth) adds, “I don’t think religion should be about your people (race)”...

Related at Majorityrights:

The Lies Will Try To Live But They’re Not White, They’re Jewish

Woes Yule gift for HuWhites of (((DissidentRight))): crayons, coloring book, color the enemy, “Left”

John Bolton spearheading P.N.A.C. and going to show that even (((1/8th))) can be toxic.

Journalist Explains John Bolton’s Push For ‘Aggressive Use’ Of American Power

NPR, 2 May 2019: New Yorker writer Dexter Filkins says President Trump’s current national security adviser is a hawk who sees America as “a colossus operating anywhere it wants.”

TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. President Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton is known as a tough-talking hawk. A new article about him in The New Yorker is titled “John Bolton On The Warpath.” My guest is the author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dexter Filkins, who’s a staff writer for the magazine. He’s joined us many times on the show, dating back to when he covered the war in Iraq.

Bolton is President Trump’s third national security adviser, after Generals Michael Flynn and H.R. McMaster. Trump was familiar with Bolton’s views because Bolton had made hundreds of appearances on Fox News as a guest, and then as a paid commentator. On Fox, he’d advocated for military strikes on Iranian training camps and for forced regime change in North Korea. Earlier in Bolton’s career, he served in the George W. Bush administration as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs and as U.N. ambassador. He advocated for the invasion of Iraq and told Filkins he still thinks the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was correct.

Dexter Filkins, welcome back to FRESH AIR. So as you point out in the piece, the Trump administration has no permanent secretary of defense, no secretary of homeland security, no ambassador to the U.N. What does it mean in terms of the power John Bolton has now in his role as national security adviser?

DEXTER FILKINS: Well, the national security adviser, just by virtue of the geography of that job - it’s in the West Wing. It’s right down the hall from the Oval Office. It’s an incredibly powerful position. You know, Bolton sees the president every morning. He sees him or he talks to him in the evening. It’s just, the proximity of that job to the presidency gives the occupant of that job just an enormous amount of power. So just on its face, you know, you’re in the pole position there. But I think in this administration because, you know, it’s a revolving door in the rest of the government pretty much all the time - Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, he’s gone. There hasn’t been - no replacement has been named so there’s an acting secretary of defense. There’s no ambassador to the United Nations. There’s no secretary for homeland security.

So it’s just kind of a big vacuum. I think it’s fair to say that makes his job even bigger and gives him even more influence than you would ordinarily have. So I think in that administration, when you’re talking about foreign policy, you’re basically talking about John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, and that’s it.

GROSS: And are they on the same page on most things, Pompeo and Bolton?

FILKINS: I think so. I had a funny conversation about Pompeo and Bolton together with an unnamed Western diplomat who knows them both. And they said, look, you know, Pompeo is really only interested in what Trump is interested in. So you can’t really sit down and talk about the world with him. Bolton, on the other hand, you can talk about anything. You can talk about aid programs in Africa, and he’s well-briefed. He knows about it. But Pompeo has a much more political outlook.

GROSS: So you’re saying Pompeo is there to amplify Trump’s views. Bolton has very strong views of his own.

FILKINS: Yes, he does.

GROSS: So the title of your piece is “John Bolton On The Warpath.” I know he’s a hawk. Does the piece imply that he’s going to lead us into war?

FILKINS: No, but I think it fairly raises a lot of questions. And I think the basis of the piece is this, which I was kind of surprised to find - this divergence of world views between Bolton, on the one hand, who’s been a hawk his whole life. He’s for aggressive use of American power. He’s advocated bombing North Korea. He’s advocated bombing Iran. And then on the other hand, to the extent that President Trump has a world view, it is he wants to stay home. It’s America first. He’s pretty close to being an isolationist. He doesn’t want to - you know, he doesn’t want to partake in this kind of entire international architecture that was set up after the Second World War, whether it’s the World Trade Organization, or NATO or EU. He doesn’t want to pay for any of that stuff, and he doesn’t want to get involved.

So Trump, I think it’s fair to say, doesn’t really want to launch new military operations. They do not see eye to eye on things. I tried to kind of, you know, figure out what it is they talk about when they get together (laughter) for that reason.

GROSS: If Trump and Bolton have such opposing world views when it comes to the possibility of military intervention or war, why would Trump choose him? Why did he choose him?

FILKINS: Well, I think there’s - that’s a really good question. I think there’s two reasons for that. One is that, you know, I think he’s, Bolton, is kind of emotionally appealing to Trump. You know, Bolton was a very highly paid analyst on Fox News. He was on there few times a week. One of the revelations is - for me was I got to look at Mr. Bolton’s financial disclosure, which you’re required to submit for a job like that. And yeah, there was lots of stuff in there. So I think he was being paid $600,000 a year - this is just part of his income, but - $600,000 a year to be on Fox. And so every night, he’s banging away, talking tough. And I think that appeals emotionally to Trump. He’s like, he’s a tough guy. Plus he just sees him all the time. ‘Cause they didn’t really know each other very well.

I think the other reason is there were - H.R. McMaster had been the national security adviser before John Bolton. And there was a kind of a pretty large group of Trump allies who had decided that McMaster had to go. They didn’t like him. They thought he wasn’t supportive enough of Israel and of, you know, the current leadership there. And so they pushed him out. I mean, I think it’s fair to say they lobbied very hard to get him out, and they worked pretty hard to get Bolton in. So I think it was a confluence of those two things.

GROSS: What did Bolton advocate for as a highly paid commentator on Fox News?

FILKINS: (Laughter). Well, he, as I mentioned, he - and I went through a lot of stuff that he said on the air. And, you know, I think he’s finding - I should say, before I answer that question - I think he’s finding, you know, it’s a little different when you’re in power, as opposed to being out of power. But on Fox, talking tough - strike North Korea, if necessary, before they acquire an ICBM capability. Strike Iran in various, you know, various ways and in various contexts. That’s, like, at a minimum. And support Israel in its kind of what I think is a covert or actually pretty hot war that’s going on with Iran and Syria.

So really aggressive use of American power. But I think even more than that, not just - you know, not just dropping bombs. I think that Bolton’s worldview is he’s extremely skeptical of international agreements, whether they’re treaties or, again, the whole kind of architecture that was built by the United States over the past 70 years. You know, whether it’s NATO, or the EU, or the U.N. or the World Trade Organization, all those things which, you know, that’s the world we live in. And he is - and these are, you know, treaties and commitments, and bilateral agreements, multilateral agreements. He’s deeply skeptical of all those things. And he says, essentially, in - he has said this on Fox News, but he’s been very articulate about it in his writing, which is, every time you sign a treaty or a multilateral agreement, you give up a little bit of your sovereignty. And so I think he sees - his view of America is as a kind of colossus operating unilaterally wherever it wants. And, you know, if you pick up friends along the way, great. But they’re not going to be your friends for long. ‘Cause there’s no such things as friends in the international system. There’s only interests. And only interests endure. And so don’t get sentimental about it. Just carry on. And I think that it’s a very unsentimental view of the world that he OK. But Trump fell in love with…

READ MORE...

From Age of Treason Blogspot:

“The Tautology of Jewing”

Captainchaos
23 APRIL 2019 AT 11:46 PM
Why is commenting disabled on the new post?

Tanstaafl
24 APRIL 2019 AT 1:56 AM
Unintentional. Fixed now.

....

And from Majorityrights:

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 01 May 2019 23:06 | # 3

Daniel Sperglord and Mangina-in-black enjoy pounding each other’s gay asses!

DanielS:

Captainchaos, while you are trying to deride mancinblack as effeminate for supporting me and MR, why don’t you instead question the wisdom of those who expect Whites to drop all concerns for every other antagonism to our system and attack the ‘pathogen’  ....markedly, it is not going to help us to separate and achieve autonomy from the pathogen if we do not also address our naive susceptibility to the pathogen or deliberate, traitorous introduction of it to our system that happens typically through vulnerabilities and entry by liberal/right wing thin or even pseudo warranted objectivism; also typically a reaction to the contradictory language games that YKW are playing in order to keep our people associated with the right, its rational blindness, mystification, confusion, short shrift of social accountability (viz. even to our people) and with it, disruption of our social systemic homeostasis? - obviously one of the chief aims of the pathogen is to break through systemic defense. Thus, it is obviously valid and important to look at our system and its vulnerabilities.

In short, it is going to be hard to take-on an enemy full throttle while you’ve got people confused, thinking you’re doing wrong, or naively “clearly” thinking that you are wrong because they are abiding by right wing/liberal (their lefts are our liberalism, rupturing our unionization when pitted against our bounds) language games, or outright stabbing us in the back because right wing pseudo objectivity serves to “excuse” why it is that they take the liberties or pay-offs afforded, and “why” we are getting destroyed in their abiding language games as “just a fact of nature” that they have no part in aiding and abetting.

I’ve been looking at this problem since the early 90s, and started to bring it to a double entry with the YKW as the chief problems to our social systemic homeostasis in 2009 ..and have been cultivating it since.

Now, regarding “pathological altruism” (the Taylor, MacDonald thing, circa, what? 2011? I never paid much attention to it) I only suggested that it may have been their naive attempt, even a misdirected attempt to look at our part, as it would likely be (misdirected), still caught up in right wing objectivism by its very means of “description and diagnosis”, but to suggest that I was part of misdirection and not taking the YKW seriously enough because I also believe it is necessary to address vulnerabilities and other antagonism (which will usually lead to their being organized to imposition upon us by YKW, true), and the fact that I recognize serious errors in Hitler’s philosophy and regime (misdirected and misdirecting headlong into disaster for Europeans, as his right wing premises would), are things that I, and Majorityrights, deserve credit for in service of European peoples, not harassment and denunciation.

And isn’t it a perfect example, wouldn’t Trump’s vanity just have him lap-up objectivist flattery and have the YKW walk right into his system, knocking his daughter up, directing his campaign to undo the Iran Deal, get him elected, and move right into Oval Office meetings to set his administration’s agenda?

Attorney General Barr testifies on Mueller report (part one) | USA TODAY

Attorney General Barr testifies on Mueller report (part two) | USA TODAY