[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.
Noteworthy gains were made by Europe’s nationalist-populist, eurosceptic parties in this weekend’s European Parliament elections as support for centrist parties which had previously dominated the European Union for decades drastically fell.
The enormous success enjoyed by Italy’s League party, France’s National Rally, and the UK’s five-week-old Brexit party are glaring signs that Europe is indeed undergoing significant changes.
Signs like these mark the beginning of a “new European Renaissance,” declared Matteo Salvini, Italy’s populist Deputy Prime Minister, Interior Minister, and leader of the League at party headquarters in Milan.
“A new Europe is born. I am proud that the League is participating in this new European renaissance,” Salvini asserted.
Salvini continued, saying, “Significantly, as the ‘League’ became the dominant party in Italy, Marine Le Pen swept into a leading position in France, and Nigel Farage in the UK… This is a sign that Europe is changing, Europe is tired of being a slave to the elites, corporations and the powers-that-be.”
Surprisingly, the League’s populist coalition partner, the Five Star Movement (MS5), was outdone by the center-left Democratic Party (PD) which came in second.
The League, which campaigned on a platform that attacked the globalist, pro-mass migration policies of the European Union, made sweeping gains, outdoing it’s governing coalition partner and rival, the 5-Star Movement.
Salvini assured reporters in Milan that the European election results wouldn’t ignite any “settling of accounts” within Italy’s internal political landscape, adding that, “nothing changes at the national level.”
Salvini reiterated that globalist left-wing forces that have incompetently governed Italy and Europe for years now remain as his chief adversaries, while his populist allies in government were partners and friends with whom he would immediately resume cooperation and joint work.
Just five years ago, in Europe’s last parliamentary elections, the League barely managed to overcome the 6 percent barrier.
Since then eurosceptic, populist, and ethnonationalist parties have made significant gains across Europe in EU parliamentary elections, as the political center – which has dominated for the past 40 years – has been hollowed out substantially.
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.”
John Bolton spearheading P.N.A.C. and going to show that even (((1/8th))) can be toxic.
Journalist Explains John Bolton’s Push For ‘Aggressive Use’ Of American Power
NPR, 2 May 2019: New Yorker writer Dexter Filkins says President Trump’s current national security adviser is a hawk who sees America as “a colossus operating anywhere it wants.”
TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. President Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton is known as a tough-talking hawk. A new article about him in The New Yorker is titled “John Bolton On The Warpath.” My guest is the author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dexter Filkins, who’s a staff writer for the magazine. He’s joined us many times on the show, dating back to when he covered the war in Iraq.
Bolton is President Trump’s third national security adviser, after Generals Michael Flynn and H.R. McMaster. Trump was familiar with Bolton’s views because Bolton had made hundreds of appearances on Fox News as a guest, and then as a paid commentator. On Fox, he’d advocated for military strikes on Iranian training camps and for forced regime change in North Korea. Earlier in Bolton’s career, he served in the George W. Bush administration as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs and as U.N. ambassador. He advocated for the invasion of Iraq and told Filkins he still thinks the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was correct.
Dexter Filkins, welcome back to FRESH AIR. So as you point out in the piece, the Trump administration has no permanent secretary of defense, no secretary of homeland security, no ambassador to the U.N. What does it mean in terms of the power John Bolton has now in his role as national security adviser?
DEXTER FILKINS: Well, the national security adviser, just by virtue of the geography of that job - it’s in the West Wing. It’s right down the hall from the Oval Office. It’s an incredibly powerful position. You know, Bolton sees the president every morning. He sees him or he talks to him in the evening. It’s just, the proximity of that job to the presidency gives the occupant of that job just an enormous amount of power. So just on its face, you know, you’re in the pole position there. But I think in this administration because, you know, it’s a revolving door in the rest of the government pretty much all the time - Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, he’s gone. There hasn’t been - no replacement has been named so there’s an acting secretary of defense. There’s no ambassador to the United Nations. There’s no secretary for homeland security.
So it’s just kind of a big vacuum. I think it’s fair to say that makes his job even bigger and gives him even more influence than you would ordinarily have. So I think in that administration, when you’re talking about foreign policy, you’re basically talking about John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, and that’s it.
GROSS: And are they on the same page on most things, Pompeo and Bolton?
FILKINS: I think so. I had a funny conversation about Pompeo and Bolton together with an unnamed Western diplomat who knows them both. And they said, look, you know, Pompeo is really only interested in what Trump is interested in. So you can’t really sit down and talk about the world with him. Bolton, on the other hand, you can talk about anything. You can talk about aid programs in Africa, and he’s well-briefed. He knows about it. But Pompeo has a much more political outlook.
GROSS: So you’re saying Pompeo is there to amplify Trump’s views. Bolton has very strong views of his own.
FILKINS: Yes, he does.
GROSS: So the title of your piece is “John Bolton On The Warpath.” I know he’s a hawk. Does the piece imply that he’s going to lead us into war?
FILKINS: No, but I think it fairly raises a lot of questions. And I think the basis of the piece is this, which I was kind of surprised to find - this divergence of world views between Bolton, on the one hand, who’s been a hawk his whole life. He’s for aggressive use of American power. He’s advocated bombing North Korea. He’s advocated bombing Iran. And then on the other hand, to the extent that President Trump has a world view, it is he wants to stay home. It’s America first. He’s pretty close to being an isolationist. He doesn’t want to - you know, he doesn’t want to partake in this kind of entire international architecture that was set up after the Second World War, whether it’s the World Trade Organization, or NATO or EU. He doesn’t want to pay for any of that stuff, and he doesn’t want to get involved.
So Trump, I think it’s fair to say, doesn’t really want to launch new military operations. They do not see eye to eye on things. I tried to kind of, you know, figure out what it is they talk about when they get together (laughter) for that reason.
GROSS: If Trump and Bolton have such opposing world views when it comes to the possibility of military intervention or war, why would Trump choose him? Why did he choose him?
FILKINS: Well, I think there’s - that’s a really good question. I think there’s two reasons for that. One is that, you know, I think he’s, Bolton, is kind of emotionally appealing to Trump. You know, Bolton was a very highly paid analyst on Fox News. He was on there few times a week. One of the revelations is - for me was I got to look at Mr. Bolton’s financial disclosure, which you’re required to submit for a job like that. And yeah, there was lots of stuff in there. So I think he was being paid $600,000 a year - this is just part of his income, but - $600,000 a year to be on Fox. And so every night, he’s banging away, talking tough. And I think that appeals emotionally to Trump. He’s like, he’s a tough guy. Plus he just sees him all the time. ‘Cause they didn’t really know each other very well.
I think the other reason is there were - H.R. McMaster had been the national security adviser before John Bolton. And there was a kind of a pretty large group of Trump allies who had decided that McMaster had to go. They didn’t like him. They thought he wasn’t supportive enough of Israel and of, you know, the current leadership there. And so they pushed him out. I mean, I think it’s fair to say they lobbied very hard to get him out, and they worked pretty hard to get Bolton in. So I think it was a confluence of those two things.
GROSS: What did Bolton advocate for as a highly paid commentator on Fox News?
FILKINS: (Laughter). Well, he, as I mentioned, he - and I went through a lot of stuff that he said on the air. And, you know, I think he’s finding - I should say, before I answer that question - I think he’s finding, you know, it’s a little different when you’re in power, as opposed to being out of power. But on Fox, talking tough - strike North Korea, if necessary, before they acquire an ICBM capability. Strike Iran in various, you know, various ways and in various contexts. That’s, like, at a minimum. And support Israel in its kind of what I think is a covert or actually pretty hot war that’s going on with Iran and Syria.
So really aggressive use of American power. But I think even more than that, not just - you know, not just dropping bombs. I think that Bolton’s worldview is he’s extremely skeptical of international agreements, whether they’re treaties or, again, the whole kind of architecture that was built by the United States over the past 70 years. You know, whether it’s NATO, or the EU, or the U.N. or the World Trade Organization, all those things which, you know, that’s the world we live in. And he is - and these are, you know, treaties and commitments, and bilateral agreements, multilateral agreements. He’s deeply skeptical of all those things. And he says, essentially, in - he has said this on Fox News, but he’s been very articulate about it in his writing, which is, every time you sign a treaty or a multilateral agreement, you give up a little bit of your sovereignty. And so I think he sees - his view of America is as a kind of colossus operating unilaterally wherever it wants. And, you know, if you pick up friends along the way, great. But they’re not going to be your friends for long. ‘Cause there’s no such things as friends in the international system. There’s only interests. And only interests endure. And so don’t get sentimental about it. Just carry on. And I think that it’s a very unsentimental view of the world that he OK. But Trump fell in love with…
Daniel Sperglord and Mangina-in-black enjoy pounding each other’s gay asses!
DanielS:
Captainchaos, while you are trying to deride mancinblack as effeminate for supporting me and MR, why don’t you instead question the wisdom of those who expect Whites to drop all concerns for every other antagonism to our system and attack the ‘pathogen’ ....markedly, it is not going to help us to separate and achieve autonomy from the pathogen if we do not also address our naive susceptibility to the pathogen or deliberate, traitorous introduction of it to our system that happens typically through vulnerabilities and entry by liberal/right wing thin or even pseudo warranted objectivism; also typically a reaction to the contradictory language games that YKW are playing in order to keep our people associated with the right, its rational blindness, mystification, confusion, short shrift of social accountability (viz. even to our people) and with it, disruption of our social systemic homeostasis? - obviously one of the chief aims of the pathogen is to break through systemic defense. Thus, it is obviously valid and important to look at our system and its vulnerabilities.
In short, it is going to be hard to take-on an enemy full throttle while you’ve got people confused, thinking you’re doing wrong, or naively “clearly” thinking that you are wrong because they are abiding by right wing/liberal (their lefts are our liberalism, rupturing our unionization when pitted against our bounds) language games, or outright stabbing us in the back because right wing pseudo objectivity serves to “excuse” why it is that they take the liberties or pay-offs afforded, and “why” we are getting destroyed in their abiding language games as “just a fact of nature” that they have no part in aiding and abetting.
I’ve been looking at this problem since the early 90s, and started to bring it to a double entry with the YKW as the chief problems to our social systemic homeostasis in 2009 ..and have been cultivating it since.
Now, regarding “pathological altruism” (the Taylor, MacDonald thing, circa, what? 2011? I never paid much attention to it) I only suggested that it may have been their naive attempt, even a misdirected attempt to look at our part, as it would likely be (misdirected), still caught up in right wing objectivism by its very means of “description and diagnosis”, but to suggest that I was part of misdirection and not taking the YKW seriously enough because I also believe it is necessary to address vulnerabilities and other antagonism (which will usually lead to their being organized to imposition upon us by YKW, true), and the fact that I recognize serious errors in Hitler’s philosophy and regime (misdirected and misdirecting headlong into disaster for Europeans, as his right wing premises would), are things that I, and Majorityrights, deserve credit for in service of European peoples, not harassment and denunciation.
And isn’t it a perfect example, wouldn’t Trump’s vanity just have him lap-up objectivist flattery and have the YKW walk right into his system, knocking his daughter up, directing his campaign to undo the Iran Deal, get him elected, and move right into Oval Office meetings to set his administration’s agenda?
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 10 April 2019 05:00.
László Bogár reminds us that we are not alone.
Full House Judiciary Committee Hearing on ‘Hate Crimes’ and the Rise of ‘White Nationalism’
‘White Nationalism’ is placed in scare quotes as the enemies of White people take the liberty to render pejorative, defaming and indicting mis-definitions of White Nationalism, notably, as being synonymous with ‘supremacism’, despite the fact that White Nationalists just about always reject supremacism and define White Nationalism as we do here, as a designation for the Nationalist sovereignty of European nations and peoples; therefore, governed separatism, a means for peaceful co-existence, the multicultural diversity of human and pervasive ecology, not supremacism, imperialism, exploitation or violence.
“Many White Extremist Killers Were Inspired by Earlier Attacks” chart via New York Times
Here’s what you need to know
The attack in Christchurch, New Zealand did not happen in a vacuum. It was part of an overall increase in white nationalist violence that’s been legitimized through public officials’ extreme rhetoric in government, and effectively allowed to wreak havoc in society. In partnership with organizations such as Bend the Arc, we have been raising the red flag on the need to reject white nationalism for years. We’ve called on Congress to conduct a hearing on white nationalism. We’ve called on tech companies to do a better job of enforcing their hate speech policies online. We’ve also constantly called on the Trump administration and other elected officials to cease their extreme rhetoric as it continues to marginalize communities. Congress will be holding a hearing on Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism and we’ll be there, bringing you updates from the front lines.
Here are the details
It’s been over three weeks since a man opened fire in two mosques and killed 50 innocent Muslim worshippers. Since then, there’s been an increase in related hate violence, both here at home and abroad. In California, there was an attempted arson attack where graffiti referenced the New Zealand attack. In Britain, there has been a 600% increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes of almost 600%. The vast majority of those were incidents linked to the Christchurch attacks.
The increase in white nationalism has been legitimized in our government by President Trump. His long-standing affinity for white nationalist rhetoric, leaders and movements is well documented. Administration officials and members of Congress, often feign opposition of the President’s rhetoric. Yet, they continue to see through a policy agenda which is inspired by this ideology. We’ve seen white nationalists organize on social media platforms. In 2017, The Guardian released a report detailing how Facebook’s community standards allow harmful content and white supremacist ideology a space to live and escalate.
Along with national civil rights groups, we pushed tech companies to change their community guidelines. We’ve been pushing them to enforce their hate speech policies more effectively. Facebook has announced that they will ban posts, photos and other content that references white nationalism and white separatism. Still, it should not take a massacre to force a simple conversation over how to deal with these issues.
When attacks similar to Christchurch, Pittsburgh or Oak Creek occur, our message has been clear. Any response to these incidences, and to the forces which led to them, must come as part of a reaffirmation that America aspires to be pluralistic and unified. To achieve, we have to ensure any legislative or political response does not deepen already existing divides.
Here’s what we’re doing
As the first step in moving a path forward, together we have called on Congress to conduct a hearing on white nationalism. We need to have an understanding of white nationalism and its impact on communities. We need Congress to call white nationalism what it is: a threat to our domestic and national security.
We thank Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee, for his bold leadership hosting today’s hearing. Follow us on social media and join the conversation as we cover this important hearing.
Red Ice’s commentary: House Judiciary committee Hearing on Criminalizing Nationalism for White People.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 06 April 2019 09:19.
Matteo Salvini and Marine Le Pen had a cordial meeting earlier this week, in which they discussed their ‘common sense revolution’ to overtake the EU for native European nationalist purposes.
The leaders are thinking about holding a joint rally to close the campaign for the European elections and “announce the start of a new Europe”, according to the sources
John Bolton spearheading P.N.A.C. and going to show that even (((1/8th))) can be toxic.
László Bogár reminds us that we are not alone.
Theresa May at the top nearly 3 years
