Majorityrights News > Category: Globalisation

It’s clear that (((Frame Games))), an (((interloper))) on White advocacy, is playing a (((frame game))) in which he is trying to say that Jewish abuse of “social sciences” (viz., against Whites) is an inherent problem of these disciplines (and the answer is right wing scientism against this social “left”) when in fact the problem is not inherent in these disciplines, the problem is inherent in the Jewish abuse of these disciplines. This disingenuous angle that he is taking in order to encourage right wing reaction and identity among Whites follows my hypothesis of what the YKW are trying to do - make “the left”, i.e. a proper sense of social unionization/organization of non Jewish groups, particularly Whites, against them, into “the problem”, the “enemy” - now that they have hegemony in the 8 power niches:

1) Money 2) Religion 3) Academia 4) Media (mutating into control of internet choke points and additional tech interactive control) 5) Business/international business 6) Politics 7) Law & Courts [* add NGO’s and perhaps military tech and cyberwarfare] adding: 8) Organized Crime.

That is, they don’t want you to do any of that lefty social organizing and unionizing now that they are on top; they don’t want you to realize that that lefty organizing of their group interests was largely how they attained hegemonic power - they want you to believe that lefty organizing is your problem; that they got to where they are through objective right wing merit, through pure objective science - lol.

Anti-Racism is anti-social classification (unionization being one form thereof, ehtno-nationalism another, and these forms can overlap), it is Cartesian, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

It blocks accountability to social historical capital and the social systemic patterns of human ecology.

Right wingers are usually reacting to a system - and people - that they don’t want to be a part of; often quite rightly so.

In the case of Jews, however, their right wing advocacy is motivated by not wanting You goyim to be a part of a coherent, unionized social system.

Nevertheless, Frame Games is assimilating some of the better talking points and concerns of White advocacy; and in his attempt to ingratiate himself to White right wing reaction, he is providing some insights that we can use; such as this horror:

Frame Games: (In the Jewish academic world he came into) “I was encouraged to put the threatening line of inquiry, my love of science and biology aside and to study law instead.

But one of the things that first shocked me on my red pill journey was a class in Constitutional Law. I thought I’d left biology behind…

Then we got to the section on the 1964 Civil Rights Act...

And how THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE has been re-interpreted away from equal to where any White over representation is considered prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.

A lot of people think of affirmative action being the exception to the equal protection clause…. if you only knew how deep it goes…

Are you guys familiar with “disparate impact”? .....a legal doctrine

“Disparate Impact is probably the most evil and disgusting piece of distoriionary nuclear fall-out in American jurisprudence.

What it says is that:

If there are racially neutral laws on the books or racially neutral practices at any corporation or government agency, if they have the effect of creating disparate impact on different groups - that is, if there are racial differences that emerge even where they are racially neutral by law, by practice, by custom, then it is presumed as prima facie evidence of racial discrimination and allows anybody to launch a civil rights law-suit against you with TREBLE -

A law suit against you with Treble damages - that means three times damages from whatever you suffered.

So, Disparate Impact means that no matter what you do, if you are a company, you are a solo practitioner, if you are a government agency, no matter what you do, if racial differences emerge you are liable unless you can prove, that is, the burden of proof is on you to show that you are PROACTIVELY DISCRIMINATING (for blacks/browns and against Whites, against Asians too, really, as they have to score 400 points higher than blacks on SAT’s to get the same university slots).

This is a common law doctrine.”

Greg Johnson’s Avatar

We begin with the formula for infiltration - gaining entryism into the Alt Right/and the like White-Right - with a sympathetic voice of the YKW to join-in to tell their ‘red-pill’ story, their journey into race realism.” *

...and Frame Games begins:

“I was just a regular guy”... “I’ve been on this journey” ..(let him tell you what he’s discovered, fellow travelers of the Alt Right).

...because Jews are sufficiently taken as White by Whites and non White alike, he’d like to promote the crypsis by emphasizing “a new way forward”, promoting the asking of the question: “Is it good for White people” (as opposed to criticizing others).

Mark Dyal

Mark Dyal

Naivete is nothing new for his interlocutor in this podcast, Greg Johnson - this is the man who seriously entertains Vox Day, who ardently defended Mike Enoch despite all evidence of his dishonesty, who banned me from Counter-Currents for criticizing Mark Dyal’s interloping upon White advocacy.

Greg indeed provides for (((entryism))) - a viral poz opening:

” We have to have a certain openness to the enemy camp.”

Greg’s snobbery, his elitism ensconced with right wing “objectivism”, blinds him to the susceptibility to entryism by people who can impress him intellectually and with accomplishments and money, thus allowing them to influence, if not guide the narrative that he is supposed to be “stewarding”, of the lesser folks of the White pattern he would purport to steward in paternalistic elitism.

Frame Game 28:50:

“Is it good for Whites?” (Knowing that crypsis is going to fool people, non-Whites especially ...hence in entryism, he wants to ingratiate himself with the question).

Now, in this discussion, none of my hypotheses about the right/altright/new right whatever right are disconfirmed. They are prone, as reactionaries into “objectivism” to blindness in their strained quest for pure factual, foundational warrant.

Nevertheless, in that quest they can be useful, indeed coming-up with and providing facts that are useful to our advocacy and, in their rigid focus, sometimes directing focus on matters that need critical attention - even the YKW seeking entryism can be useful, provided that you know that they are seeking to direct the narrative…

In his case, they are just doing what I’ve been saying right along, trying to maintain a controlled opposition to “the social justice warriors” (i.e., undergraduates they’ve trained, who might intersect to see just how unjust the YKW are in their hegemonic 7 niche perch) .... of the “righteously real, truthful, scientific right against the left and its ‘aversion to facts, science and reality’  ..it’s penchant for the bunk and hokum of psycho analysis and sociology ..which are all the real source of the problem” ...along with people from lower ranks seeking money from law suits against wealthy Jews for their discrimination… ....not like us right wingers, us race realists, who love objective truth, science, and unequal merticocracy, as it were, now that the YKW are on top of the 7 niches….

Vox Day, of team Milo

With that, Frame Games plays the red capes: against “multiculturalism” preparing you by default to argue for integration in paleo conservatism, viz as Christians under the Jewish control of Noahide law ....as “huWhite people along with Jews in Western civilization ...the Jewish diaspora in which Frame Games admits he is motivated to remain ensconced with his people ... other people may spill blood to fight Islam (whom his people inflicted upon us - talk about “problem - reaction - solution”) and “Hispanics”, who right wingers have othered, mixed - sometimes only conceptually - sometimes in deliberate evil - but who they want to be the main enemy because they are not susceptible to pity the YKW, nor do they cooperate with their pet henchmen, the blacks.

36:10: To shine his pedigree, Johnson goes along with the reactionary right wing altercast, as he always has:

“Multiculturalism, it’s implicit imperialism…creates a situation where everyone’s homeless, nobody feels comfortable.”

[Of course, rather, it is integration with foreigners, not multiculturalism that does this.

Later Frame Game will make a big thing against another YKW red cape, “diversity” ...similarly as multiculturualism, diverse and marginal input from within a system would strengthen it, lend perspective and stability, while the YKW have perverted the terms to where what is diverse and marginal comes from without the system and destroys it in the name of “diversity is our strength”...but the Frame Game will have you arguing against “the diversity business’ ... he doesn’t so much want to allow for qualitative inputs from within the system but rather to argue for unequal quantification of the Jewish/White hybrid.]

Westward Thought

Host, “Westward thought” chimes in ...yes, women don’t feel comfortable as they are preyed upon by Muslims.”

Frame Game (38:00):

“My journey….I agree with the perils of multiculturalism - and value one dominant, normative White western civilization ...within America too and in Europe (he’s talking about paleocon Judeo Christian, John K. Press “culturalism” of western civilization):

(((John K. Press / Robert Stark)))

Viktor Orban has declared a Christian nation (((how good is that for Noahide culturalism?))).

...problems are solved by declaring normative, dominant culture.” (((full J.K. Press culturalism)))

Here he identifies with our reaction for solid warrant against the rhetoric of Jewish group advocacies… “I wanted to be an evolutionary psychologist, I wanted to be a scientist, was always interested in psychology of the mind (scientific objectivism plus Christianity is (((Frank Meyer’s))) Paleocon agenda)))...

...“they said I took evolutionary psychology too seriously (I’m such a rebel, like my fellow traveler KM)...

This was before the replication crisis in psychology, cultural anthropology, sociology and all of those bankrupt fields…but…

David Buss’s Evolutionary Psychology (The New Science of The Mind) changed my life.

When we finally have a framework for understanding the human mind…

This is a way out of racial conflict, just understand that there is human biodiversity”

[this, HBD, is another concept and term that has been perverted into a red cape by the YKW - viz., horizontal, qualitative diversity has been perverted into I.Q. quantification and hierarchization

...take relativism and put it into the objectivist perversion of “HBD”]

...here comes the half-hearted, paleocon endorsement of nationalism ...on behalf of the Zionists and diaspora - 46:30.

“I was an outstanding student, but then I had the nerve to talk science!

It’s the money! the money which has people blackballed for talking about human intelligence”...

(Thus), E.O. Wilson (was not able to overcome) Adorno, Marcuse…it’s because of the money (not Jewish ethnocentrism and sometimes costly bribing of right wing reactionaries and unprofitable propagandizing against them).

...note that there is lots of bundling “Hispanics” along with blacks as the enemy… keeps tucking that in…

There is a seat for Greg, both at the Zionist and the elite YKW diaspora table

Johnson jumps on the band wagon: “you Hispanics will simply re create the places that you come from - like Honduras”

..but Johnson does not ask how might a qualitative proportion of “Hispanics” interacting with Whites effect a collective society and their I.Q.?  ...are some of them good in non verbal I.Q.? - many are not that far removed from Japanese - could maybe contribute to a society for the better if managed properly?

....but Johnson concludes “their conditions (from which they came) are not independent variables from I.Q.” 

Here Johnson gets snookered into the YKW Frame Game that they are trying to orchestrate to weasel entyrism into White right alliance and out of their internationalist left cross hairs, in which they were the sole union, the sole pure nepotists that they would stand for:

Johnson advocates a pure meritocracy to counteract the massive over representation of Jews in academia, including places like Harvard, where they can be as much as 40% of the student body, well beyond their objectively measured merit.

Of course Jews will go along with that for now as a stall-tactic to allow time them to re-gear..

...and for their gene hijacking and eugenics, they can still be over represented by a-racial “objectivism” beyond relative group interests of Whites et al. 

Frame Game:

“If you understood just how much of the Jewish psyche is ingrained in higher education, what it is to the Jewish psyche…if their position was put into jeopardy, everyone with the name Green or Berg would be having a Russian revolution for the existential threat to their hegemonic control of universities.”

Johnson says that he is taking notes [by pandering to Johnson’s snobbish elite pedigreeist cronyism, they are getting him to swallow the idea that the objectivism that the Jews propose is the antidote, not a part of marshaling their false opposition].
......

Back to Frame Game’s story that’s supposed to ingratiate him to the Goyim -

And there IS some definite good to right wingers, even YKW ones who hope to gain entyism by ingratiation through truth, facts, etc, in that they can indeed provide facts and sharp focus where it is needed (just don’t let them take you where they want to go):

Frame Games: (By this Jewish academic world) “I was encouraged to put this threatening line of inquiry, my love of science and biology aside and to study law instead.

But one of the things that first shocked me on my red pill journey was a class in Constitutional Law. I thought I’d left biology behind…

Then we got to the section on the 1964 Civil Rights Act...

And how THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE has been re-interpreted away from equal to where any White over representation is considered prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.

A lot of people think of affirmative action being the exception to the equal protection clause…. if you only knew how deep it goes…

(in a slight American Southern - “Y’all know what I’m sayin’,  i.e., that again” - accent):

Are you guys familiar with “disparate impact”? .....a legal doctrine

“Disparate Impact is probably the most evil and disgusting piece of distoriionary nuclear fall-out in American jurisprudence.

What it says is that:

If there are racially neutral laws on the books or racially neutral practices at any corporation or government agency, if they have the effect of creating disparate impact on different groups - that is, if there are racial differences that emerge even where they are racially neutral by law, by practice, by custom, then it is presumed as prima facie evidence of racial discrimination and allows anybody to launch a civil rights law-suit against you with TREBLE -

A law suit against you with Treble damages - that means three times damages from whatever you suffered.

So, Disparate Impact means that no matter what you do, if you are a company, you are a solo practitioner, if you are a government agency, no matter what you do, if racial differences emerge you are liable unless you can prove, that is, the burden of proof is on you to show that you are PROACTIVELY DISCRIMINATING (for blacks/browns and against Whites, against Asians too, really, as they have to score 400 points higher than blacks on SAT’s to get the same university slots).

This is a common law doctrine.”
....

Then Greggy fucks in -“the basic assumption is of “racial equality”

That’s not the basic assumption, the basic assumption is White guilt (as warrant for expropriation), presumed privilege and penchant for exploitation and genocide (of Jews especially) ...the abstract presumption is more like people are to be treated as being in classificatory Noahide sameness, but with some having been unfairly discriminated against as Noahide family members, thus requiring to be compensatorily included - otherwise, paradoxically you are disingenuous/or classifcatory, a racist by definition.

With that Frame Game whisks the multiculturalism and diversity red cape..

Calling “diversity” simply a big money racket (not a Jewish mis-frame game)  that has brought corporations to their knees, US governments as well ... law suits have been a boon to lawyers, for those who must be hired as well, those who’ve been “discriminated against” and those people/firms who aid in the hiring, etc.

Greg Johnson: going with the “left = anti-science” narrative that the YKW are promulgating ....

Kanye West

“If Candace Owens and Kanye West are ‘on our side’ (with free market “conservatism” - right wing /objectivist/ race neutral, anti group interested liberalism) we should commend them without adjusting to them. Greg’s right-wing snobbery has a penchant for US Constitutional objectivism - as in the Mark Dyal/Nietzschean, anti bourgeoisie ruse.

  ...and so Frame Games has told his story, his “fair minded and objective” story…    ...like von Gold Farb, Reactionary Jew…

  ...like all entryists attempting to join cause with the White right…against “the left”....to unite in paleoconservatism..  ...a darling of JF too, Frame Games is in this regard….

Again, like all right wingers, they can indeed provide important information and focus, which we should eagerly snap up, as in Frame Game’s discussion of “Disparate Impact”...

Peinovich is all in for Trump and all against “the left”

* von Gold Farb, also ready to be “real” and tell his red pill story.

However, we should use that for our interests, not follow him/them into race neutral objectivism - against “the left’s” social advocacy - a right wing position that he is encouraging/bribing elitist snob Greg Johnson with   ....only conceding the crypsis group advocacy of asking, “is it good for huWhites?” (((i.e, blending Jewish crypsis and their Zionist and diaspora interests with Whites, in unifying (((culturalism))), that is (((paleoconservatism))) against “the left”...

     
        ...against the White left, the White Class, White ethnonationalists.

US National Security Adviser Bolton listens as US President Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at White House, April 9, 2018, in Washington. (AP/Evan Vucci)

The objective of the “Operation Clean Break” plan surreptitiously a.k.a., “Project for a New American Century”, is to ‘secure the realm around (greater) Israel by imposing Israeli controlled regime changes in the nations surrounding Israel - regime changes to be effected through the use of The United States Military: the first target for regime change was Iraq’s Saddam Hussein; Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was taken down in a most indignant way in 2011 (note: that ABC News video vilifies Gaddafi in subservience to ZOG); even “the Maidan uprising” debacle in Ukraine was probably a furtive part of this plan (Victoria Nuland, lead instigator of the Ukrainian/Russian war is the wife of Robert Kagan, who was one of the writers of The Operation Clean Break plan, along with Netanyahu, Perle, Wolfowitz et al; Cohencidentally, Jews were placed in power throughout the municipalities of Ukraine after “the Maidan uprising”). But most clearly now Operation Clean Break’s cross hairs are focused on Syria, Lebanon, and its major target - Iran.

When talking about regime change, it is important to note that Clean Break seeks regime change friendly to a greater Israel. A regime change in Iran which is non-Islamic if not secular would be preferable to ethnonationals throughout the world. But this was a process under way and a part of a safe, gradual plan for economic development and concomitant liberalization of Iran as a part of the international deal to control Iran’s nuclear program, viz, “JCPOA.”

Trump’s not so competent “cyber-czar”, the same one who handed Israeli Mossad The U.S. cyber-security choke point, thus consummating The U.S. as “ZOG” indeed, has leaked The Trump Administration’s role as an extended Zionist phenotype - “Leaked Doc Reveals White House Planning ‘Regime Change’ In Iran.”

“cyber-security czar” Giuliani and “National Security” Advisor, (((Bolton)))

Zero Hedge, “Leaked Doc Reveals White House Planning ‘Regime Change’ In Iran”, 10 May 2018:

It appears Rudy Giuliani wasn’t lying.

Just a few days after the former NYC mayor and latest member of President Trump’s unexpectedly let it slip that “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]”, the Washington Free Beacon has obtained a three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime.

The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including - who else - National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009, writes the Free Beacon, which obtained a leaked copy of the circulating plans.

The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House.

It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region. - Free Beacon

“The ordinary people of Iran are suffering under economic stagnation, while the regime ships its wealth abroad to fight its expansionist wars and to pad the bank accounts of the Mullahs and the IRGC command,” SSG writes in the paper. “This has provoked noteworthy protests across the country in recent months” it further claims as an argument to push a “regime change” policy.

For now - at least - overthrowing the Iran government, with its extensive and close ties to the Kremlin, is not official US policy; SSG president Jim Hanson told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration does not want to engage in direct military intervention in Iran - and is instead focusing on other methods of ridding Iran of its “hardline ruling regime.”

“The Trump administration has no desire to roll tanks in an effort to directly topple the Iranian regime,” Hanson said. “But they would be much happier dealing with a post-Mullah government. That is the most likely path to a nuclear weapons-free and less dangerous Iran.”

That will likely change, however.

One source close to the White House who has previewed the plan told the Free Beacon that the nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, solidified the Iranian regime’s grip on power and intentionally prevented the United States from fomenting regime change.

“The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic,” said the source, who would only speak to the Free Beacon on background about the sensitive issue. “Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. It’s now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo’s job to put this consensus back in place.”

The source tells the Beacon that Bolton is “acutely aware of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the region.”

“John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you’re never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone,” the source said, adding that “nothing’s off the table right now if Israel is attacked.”

That said, Bolton is confident that an Iranian regime change will occur in the next six months:

Battle Beagle @HarmlessYardDog
Replying to @ HarmlessYardDog

John Bolton - We Will Be Celebrating in Tehran Before 2019

>You can’t say you weren’t warned
10:20 PM - May 7, 2018

A second source tells The Beacon that the Trump administration recognizes that the “chief impediment to the region is Iran’s tyrannical regime.”

“The problem is not the Iran nuclear deal it’s the Iranian regime,” said the source. “Team Bolton has spent years creating Plans B, C, and D for dealing with that problem. President Trump hired him knowing all of that. The administration will now start aggressively moving to deal with the root cause of chaos and violence in the region in a clear-eyed way.”

Regional sources who have spoken to SSG “tell us that Iranian social media is more outraged about internal oppression, such as the recent restrictions on Telegram, than about supporting or opposing the nuclear program. Iranian regime oppression of its ethnic and religious minorities has created the conditions for an effective campaign designed to splinter the Iranian state into component parts,” the group states. -Free Beacon

“More than one third of Iran’s population is minority groups, many of whom already seek independence,” the paper explains. “U.S. support for these independence movements, both overt and covert, could force the regime to focus attention on them and limit its ability to conduct other malign activities.”

Without a regime change, the United States will continue face threats from Iranian forces stationed throughout the region, including in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon.

“The probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program willingly or even under significant pressure is low,” the plan states. “Absent a change in government within Iran, America will face a choice between accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or acting to destroy as much of this capability as possible.”

That said, President Trump made clear earlier in the week that US officials must make efforts to differentiate between the people of Iran and its ruling regime.

“Any public discussion of these options, and any messaging about the Iranian regime in general, should make a bright line distinction between the theocratic regime along with its organs of oppression and the general populace,” according to the plan. “We must constantly reinforce our support for removing the iron sandal from the necks of the people to allow them the freedom they deserve.”

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

Mortifying:

With cheerful taken-for-grantedness of the ‘unassailable’ virtue of their motives, this panel at CFR discusses the prospect of “democratization” of “illiberal democracies” by having them accept non-White migrants and integration; i.e., cheerful acceptance of the destruction of our European genome. Primarily with the targeted “problem” of Eastern European countries Not accepting immigrants.

Published on Apr 23, 2018 by Council on Foreign Relations -

Speakers discuss the growing trend toward populism around the world and the current global state of democracy.

Speakers
Michael Abramowitz

President, Freedom House; Former White House Correspondent, Washington Post

Nicole M. Bibbins Sedaca

Chair, Global Politics and Security Concentration and Professor in the Practice of International Affairs, Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown U; Former Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, US Department of State

Timothy Snyder

Richard C. Levin Professor of History, Yale University; Author, The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America

Presider
Kati I. Marton

Author and Human Rights Activist

Kati I. Marton (15:56): We haven’t yet mentioned one of the most powerful motives for the rise of populism, which is the fear of refugees - migrants.  Most graphically on display in Hungary where you can’t go a block without seeing a billboard showing George Soros’s smiling face, and the headline over that face is, ‘don’t let him have the last laugh.’

Six months ago George Soros was known to a very small handful of Budapest literati. Now he is probably the second best known person in Hungary after Victor Orban. And this manipulation of the fear of migrants, of which by the way, there are virtually none in Hungary and very few in Poland, as opposed to over a million in Germany, where this problem doesn’t exist…is something that uh, that we haven’t really dealt with sufficiently.

We seem to step-by-step, accept that his is the way of the world now. I frequently ask myself what didn’t my Hungarian grandparents, whose lives didn’t end well, what didn’t they do in the 30’s? that we should be doing today? Rather than sleepwalking thought this rather dangerous passage.

So, the migration problem and how it relates to the rise of populism - AdF (eg) is entirely about fear of outsiders.

When an audience member suggest the problem of Eastern European countries having a bad track record with regard to democracy, Snyder draws comparisons -

Snyder: (36:00): When the Supreme Court decides in 2013 that racism is no longer a problem, twenty two states then pass voter suppression laws - that’s not democratization, whatever you think of the legality of it.

...its been very hard for the West European countries to extend democracy over second class citizens (empire/subject relation)...asking about the things that make democracy possible….which for me precisely have to do with integration - the European Union, whatever its chances are, is the hope for democracy.

Kati I. Marton (38:00) ...these countries are not destined to be undemocratic, there are a whole bunch of other factors and one of them, frankly, is the luck of leaders (Merkel!)

NPR, “An Anti-Immigration Speech Divided Britain 50 Years Ago. It Still Echoes Today”, 20 April 2018:

Heard on Morning Edition

Britain’s Conservative Party politician Enoch Powell, right, listens to two demonstrators in Canada in April 1968, reading a petition that describes him as a “racist.“AP

The woman who never was? Dr Burgess said, “boiling down the 200 names that we arrived at and managed to find one individual who matches most of the essential points in the letter. And I can actually put a name to the face by saying that she was Drucilla Cotterill.” Just like the pensioner Powell quoted, Drucilla Cotterill owned her own home, lost her husband in the Second World War and stopped letting out her rooms to lodgers when immigration increased. Other former residents of the street, which is now Brighton Mews, have confirmed to Document that excrement was pushed through a letterbox in this street and that nearly all those living here were black in the late 1960s.

Mr Powell said the woman lived in his Wolverhampton constituency. By 1968 it was almost entirely populated by immigrant families, except for a 61-year-old white woman living at number 4.

How we got here: Millennial Woes goes over the history of Powell’s speech from a native nationalist position.

Related: London Street Scenes 1967

Related: BBC, “The woman who never was?”, 22 Jan 2007

Ibid. In April 1968, the United States was grieving. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a white nationalist. Cities burned with riots.

Across the Atlantic, Britain was debating the Race Relations Act, which made it illegal to deny a person employment, housing or public services based on race or national origin.

The law was intended to protect immigrants from Commonwealth nations, especially former colonies in the Caribbean, India and Pakistan. The first of these immigrants, 492 Jamaicans, had arrived 20 years earlier. Hundreds of thousands followed.

“The immigrants were called over,” says Sathnam Sanghera, an author whose Sikh parents emigrated from India during that time. “There was a labor shortage. There weren’t enough people to run the factories after the war.” Sathnam Sanghera’s Sikh parents emigrated from India. “There came the idea that white people would be crushed by the rights that black and Asian people demanded,” he says.

The immigrants were granted British citizenship and helped rebuild Britain after World War II. But they faced racism. Landlords wouldn’t rent to them. Some employers turned them away.

Tarsem Singh Sandhu, then a 23-year-old bus driver, lost his job when he refused to remove the turban he wore as part of his Sikh religion.

The Race Relations Act was intended to protect immigrants like him.

“But there came the idea that white people would be crushed by the rights that black and Asian people demanded,” Sanghera recalls.

The tension was especially obvious in Sanghera’s hometown, Wolverhampton, in England’s West Midlands, which he calls “one of the first cities in Britain to experience mass immigration.”

“A match onto gunpowder”

Enoch Powell, who represented Wolverhampton in Parliament, feared a race war coming because of mass immigration.

On April 20, 1968, he took the stage at a Conservative Party event at the Midlands Hotel in Birmingham and gave an incendiary speech that would come to define him — and divide his country.

Even now, 50 years later, there was outcry in the U.K. when BBC Radio 4 decided to broadcast an actor’s reading of the speech last weekend.

In the speech, Powell warned, “That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic ... is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.”

He attacked the bill that outlawed discrimination. He said it was whites who were facing deprivation and that Britain “must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting” large numbers of immigrants to enter.

“The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming,” he said. “This is why to enact legislation of the kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match onto gunpowder.”

Smithfield meat porters march to Parliament to hand in a petition backing British politician Enoch Powell, on April 25, 1968, five days after Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech.

He quoted a constituent — “a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized industries” — who was encouraging his children to leave England.

“In this country,” Powell quoted the man as saying, “in 15 or 20 years, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

“I can already hear the chorus of execration,” Powell continued. “How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? My answer is that I do not have the right not to do so.”

Powell said inviting mass immigration was akin to “watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

An “evil speech” with repercussions

A classics scholar, Powell also quoted Virgil’s Aeneid. “As I look ahead,” he said, “I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’ “

Powell’s address became known as the “Rivers of Blood” speech.

The Times of London immediately labeled it an “evil speech.” Conservative Party leader Edward Heath dismissed Powell from the party leadership.

“I consider the speech he made in Birmingham yesterday to have been racialist in tone and liable to exacerbate racial tensions,” Heath said.

But polls showed a majority of Britons supported Powell. Many protested, saying, “Enoch was right.” The speech emboldened racists.

READ MORE...

Scooter Libby with Paul Wolfowitz in 2008

- Observes Majorityrights correspondent, Kumiko.

It waves a giant red flag as to how much Trump is down with the Zionist agenda.

Who even needed 9-11 when you had Scooter Libby!

When you have insiders like that to manipulate the evidence to create false warrant on behalf of Zionist Operation Clean Break, you don’t need massive false flag events.

Some background: from her comment #22, 23 January 2017 at 03:33, MR article, “Next-Level TRS” -

A key moment

In fact, if you look at the PBS piece titled “A Secret History of ISIS”, they actually reveal the precise moment at which Israel injected itself into the decision-making process in the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003, and thus shaped the outcome to their advantage.

From 11min 40sec onward in that video, the transcript:

COLIN POWELL: The speech, supposedly, had been prepared in the White House and in the NSC. But when we were given what had been prepared, it was totally inadequate and we couldn’t track anything in it. And when I asked Condi Rice, the National Security Advisor, “Where did this come from?”, it turns out the Vice-President’s office had written it.

NARRATOR: Powell would turn to the CIA to vet the speech.

NADA BAKOS: We [the CIA] had a copy of the speech that was sent over from the White House that Powell was preparing, and one of our senior analysts was working on it, editing, working on the language to ensure that it reflected our analysis.

NARRATOR: Just days later, Powell arrived at the United Nations.

POWELL: Walking into that room is always a daunting experience, but I had been there before. And we had projectors and all sorts of technology to help us make the case.

KAREN DEYOUNG: Powell was very nervous. Powell doesn’t like to read speeches; he likes to have a few note cards and then do his Powell thing. But this one he read from the text, every word.

NARRATOR: At the Counterterrorism Centre, Bakos was watching carefully to see what Powell would say about Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein.

BAKOS: We’re sitting in our room at CTC watching the television with a copy of the speech in our hand. When he got to our portion, it went off our script fairly quickly. And we were looking around at each other saying, “Where’s he at, where’s he at?” We’re flipping through pages. And so, you know, right away, we could tell that this wasn’t reflecting the language that we had used.

NARRATOR: Powell used Zarqawi to make the connection between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

BAKOS: It drew conclusions in language that we would not use. So we were very, very, very careful about describing the relationship as we saw it, and it seemed to overinflate and not reflect our analysis.

INTERVIEWER: How did that happen, Nada?

BAKOS: Within the process of how it went, you know, where it went back to the White House and who worked on it after that, I don’t know how it was changed, or by who.

If anyone should want to know what happened at that crucial point, and how, the place to look would be at the office of the Chief of the Staff to the Vice President of the United States, who at the time was Scooter Libby.

If you understand that Scooter Libby was to Dick Cheney as Dick Cheney was to George W. Bush, then suddenly you become capable of seeing how it could be possible for the changes that Bakos is referring to, to have been made in the Vice-President’s office by Scooter Libby and his network of very Zionist associates.

In summary

There is no need for any kind of 9/11 conspiracy theory to explain what happened in Iraq.

The explanation has been right in front of everyone’s face from day one. The office of the Chief of the Staff to the Vice President of the United States was compromised by Israel, and as such, all decision-making processes that flowed through there were subject to having Israeli policy preferences injected into them.

It is not the only node that was compromised, but it is the most pivotal and significant one in this situation. I hope that clears up all possible questions and that everyone can draw a line under that issue and call it a closed case now.

Now for the BBC article:

BBC, “Scooter Libby: Trump pardons Cheney aide who leaked”, 13 April 2018:

US President Donald Trump has pardoned former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, who was convicted of lying about leaks to the media.

Lewis Libby, known as Scooter, was found guilty in 2007 following an investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of a CIA agent’s identity.

The White House said Libby was “fully worthy of this pardon”.

“I don’t know Mr Libby,” said Mr Trump, “but for years I have heard that he has been treated unfairly.

“Hopefully, this full pardon will help rectify a very sad portion of his life.”

What’s the background to the case?

Libby was found guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements following an investigation into a leak that revealed the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

His trial heard that Bush administration officials wanted to get back at Ms Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Mr Wilson had written a 2003 New York Times op-ed accusing Mr Cheney of doctoring pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

Libby was charged with lying to investigators about his contacts with reporters, but he maintained he simply misremembered the sequence of events.

He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 (£175,000).

But his sentence was commuted by then-President George W Bush.

What’s the reaction?

In an interview on Friday with MSNBC, Ms Plame condemned Mr Trump’s decision to pardon Libby.

“My personal sense is that I didn’t think my contempt for Donald Trump could go lower, but he surprises me each and every day,” she said.

“It’s very clear that this is a message he is sending, that you can commit crimes against national security and you will be pardoned,” she added.

Ms Plame has previously said her career as a CIA agent was finished “in an instant” once her identity was leaked.

She told the BBC in 2007 that “treason” had been committed in pursuit of political retribution.

Mr Cheney told the New York Times Mr Libby is “one of the most capable, principled and honourable men I have ever known.

“He is innocent and he and his family have suffered for years because of his wrongful conviction. I am gratedful that President Trump righted this wrong…”

On Friday, Democrats charged Mr Trump with hypocrisy for pardoning a man who leaked to the media, despite the president’s condemnation of such disclosures in his White House.

Mr Trump’s decision came on the same day that he savaged former FBI Director James Comey as a “proven LEAKER & LIAR”.

Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff tweeted: “This is the President’s way of sending a message to those implicated in the Russia investigation: You have my back and I’ll have yours.”

What was Libby case’s political fallout?

Mr Cheney had pressured Mr Bush to pardon Libby in the final days of his presidency.

But Mr Cheney’s badgering reached the point where Mr Bush reportedly told his aides his vice-president was beginning to annoy him.

After consulting White House lawyers, Mr Bush decided it was best not to issue a pardon.

When he finally told Mr Cheney about his decision, Mr Cheney snapped at him, saying: “You are leaving a good man wounded on the field of battle.”

“The comment stung,” Mr Bush would write in his memoirs.

“In eight years, I had never seen Dick like this, or even close to this.

“I worried that the friendship we had built was about to be severely strained, at best.”

Key players in the 2007 CIA leak probe

What is a presidential pardon?

Libby’s pardon amounts to official forgiveness for his crime, but does not equate to exoneration or finding that he was innocent.

Presidential pardons can overturn consequences of a conviction such as being denied the right to carry out jury service, vote or run for political office.

Since the conviction, Libby has already had his law license reinstated.

And former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell restored his voting rights in 2013.

This is the third time Mr Trump has issued a pardon.

In August last year, he did so for former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt over his crackdown on undocumented immigrants.

Last month he pardoned Kristian Saucier, a Navy sailor who took photos of classified areas inside a US submarine and served a year in federal prison.

Kumiko adds:  Last night’s strike was not what they wanted.

John Bolton and some middle eastern leaders are laying the metapolitical backdrop for that - they wanted a broad and longer engagement. .

Instead, they got a limited strike because the US Defence Dept prevented anything bigger.

Trump was upset but went with what he could do.

(Trump was wanting something bigger too)

Though Vice is a liberal program and they do their critical best to undermine Orban, this episode inadvertently illustrates the popularity of Orban and his ethnonationalist cause - encouraging: