Majorityrights News > Category: Jewish Diaspora

RHF Solicitors’ Festenstein advising Tommy Robinson.

Diversity Macht Frei, Tommy Robinson meets 12 Jews to beg for kosher certification, gets 400 quid”, 5 July 2017:

Tommy Robinson meets 12 Jews to beg for kosher certification. His employer (Ezra Levant) is Jewish. The lawyer (Robert Festenstein) he talks to in the video he makes is Jewish. He goes to Israel and proclaims himself a “Zionist”. And what does he get for all this effort? 400 quid, a denunciation from the Board of Deputies and every other mainstream Jewish organisation, repudiation by the Jewish lawyer he spoke to and an article in the Jewish Chronicle warning Jews not to associate with him.

Will the poor deluded Gentile fools in the Counterjewhad movement ever wake up and acknowledge the role Jews are playing in facilitating the islamisation of Europe, or indeed their role (link) as collaborators of Muslims throughout history, including in the creation of Islam itself?

The JC, “Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson holds secret meeting with Manchester Jews”, 4 July 2017:

JLM members had been left “outraged” after learning of the event.

Members of Manchester’s Jewish community held a secret meeting with Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the far-right English Defence League.

The controversial meeting, which took place in Prestwich last week, was billed as a charity fundraiser, but also saw Mr Robinson deliver a speech outlining his extreme views on Islam.

The JC spoke to one community member who confirmed her friends had organised the session, but said she would “take legal action” if her own name was linked to the event.

Another source confirmed the meeting with Mr Robinson, who is a former British National Party member, went on until “the early hours” of last Thursday morning. Around a dozen people attended.

Invitations to attend were extended to other community groups including the North West Friends of Israel – but its spokesman Anthony Dennison said the group had declined the invitation.

Mr Dennison said: “We find some of Tommy Robinson’s opinions abhorrent. Unfortunately in our community there are a small number of people who are attracted his policies.

“This is unacceptable, and something North West Friends of Israel will never be associated with.”

       

READ MORE...

Darwin Digest: North, East and West Africa. ...“We” was Not Kangs.

         
            ...It has been said that Greg is rather nondescript.

Greg Johnson discusses Heidegger’s Black Notebooks, which include Heidegger’s most clear statements on the Jewish question.

On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction - when Jewish victimology turns attention to Jews as the victimizers, Jewish exceptionalism is invoked as “Neo” - “As long as I can remember I’ve been a ‘Neo’-Something: A Neo-Marxist, a Neo-Trotskyist, a Neo-Liberal, a Neo-Conservative and in religion, always, Neo-Orthodox, even while I was a Neo-Trotskyist and a Neo-Marxist….I’m going to end up a Neo, just Neo, that’s all.”

Intersectionality: Jewish ordering and exceptionalism in victimology - the “Neo-exceptions” of victimology in the age of treason:

Tanstaafl usually provides incisive insight into Jewish machinations. As he does here in his observation of “intersectionality”, recognizing that to be the point at which Jewish victimology turns attention back to them as the victimizers - which then requires their interests to propose their exceptionalism to the rule - a rule which might be wiggled-out-of as they don themselves “neo” this or that.

Tan’s incisiveness can, however, cut off important “ambiguities” - “ambiguities” that provide means for learning, creativity and agency in the realm of praxis - Tan accuses me of “jargon” for this word, which outlines the interactivity of the social world and its impossibility to predict 1000% for the human capacity for reflexive agency in responses; e.g., I was surprised by Tan when he wanted me to clearly understand that he had “no problem with Hitler.” I expected him to change that, to observe problems, at least some problems with Hitler’s worldview after a reading on his former network of the chapter in Table-Talk, viz., where Hitler discusses his opinion of Ukrainians, the subservient role he saw for those not killed in resistance to his aspiration for aggrandizement of their land. Tan had, after all, objected to Carolyn’s insulting support of Hitler’s disparagement.

Typically in this post also then, we should look-out for some blind spots in Tan’s analysis for his tacit identification with a right-wing perspective, particularly Nazi apologetics.

The wish to vindicate Hitler can make for an over-focus, even if slightly, on Jews as the problem. If Jews were THAT much of the problem, virtually the only problem, then Hitler is apparently, largely vindicated for his “minor indiscretions”. It is not that there should not be strong focus on on the J.Q. But it becomes an “over-focus” when in that incisive focus it parses-out and does not afford discussion of our part, our agency - where any sort of ambiguity is not allowed-for as it does not follow the “logic” of the J.Q. (us or them) - as was the case where Tan’s logic accused someone like me of trying to distract, minimize or malign those who focus on the J.Q. Whereas I am, in fact, merely calling for the need to also examine the part some of our people play (as if we don’t know that Jews like Alana Mercer try to focus singularly on that side of the equation) in our situation, with Jews and otherwise.

When Tan seeks to vindicate Hitler and unburden guilt and agency among his community of sympathizers - by suggesting rather that I am minimizing the J.Q., the singularly paramount issue, a life and death struggle against Jewish interests, as he expresses it - Tan is pushing Whites in the direction of repeating the same mistake, of headlong and disastrous reaction for wont of sufficiently deep and broad epistemic preparation - a necessary grounding especially in the praxis of European ethno-national coordination (which the motive of Hitler vindication precludes). 

Furthermore, by not allowing for the “ambiguity” of praxis he performs an additional disservice by going along with a Jewish default on left and right - i.e., where they can’t get you to cop to being a right winger or an alt-righter, they want you to say, as Tan does, “left and right is not a useful distinction.” Tan adds cleverly, I am a “White winger.”

While he has criticized Lawrence Auster for making liberalism the problem and not Jews, his overly precise focus has bi-passed the fact that liberalism is the problem in the sense that liberalism unfolds characteristically, in reality, as license against group classificatory interests - a consequent in reality especially given the manicheanism of Jewish interests which exaggerate and instigate that liberal prerogative indeed; though liberalism as it follows consequently of insufficient account to our interests is still the manifest problem, even if Auster complains about it, even if instigated by Auster’s fellow YKW: And particularly if liberalism is hidden beneath titular conservatism, as in neo-conservatism or paleoconservatism, or the mistakenly presumed conservatism of Christianity - as any sort of conservatism that they propose will be under their Noahide control; thus not conservative of our sovereign classificatory interests.

Worse, Tan says that Gottfried wants to blame liberalism as well - and so he does, but even more so does Gottfried want to blame and vilify “The Left” - the unionized accountability to social classification - and to position White identity against it - and has, in the form of the Alternative-Right - everybody is blaming “the left” as a result of the language game Gottfried set in motion. And while it is not always correct to play “opposite day”, in this case, it is - we should be asking why Gottfried et al. want us to do that? What is wrong about a White Right - Alt-Right or otherwise? Even more significantly, what is correct about a White Left perspective such that Gottfried et al. do not want us to identify with it?

I do believe that Tan’s blind spots stem from his starting point in defense of his partial German heritage, partly from his STEM-nerd background as well, which has been overly-reinforced against the helpful ambiguities of praxis by right-wing reactionary communities in The US. Thus, he will gain dubious support, for example by fellow Hitler apologist Wolf Wall Street - who will call Tan “the greatest epistemologist in White Nationalism”. When in fact, epistemology is one of Tanstaafl’s blind spots and weak points.

That doesn’t mean that most of what Tan has to say isn’t good - it is. His amplification of the matter of crypsis is an important contribution. But incisive, good and significant as his citing “anti-racism as a Jewish construct” is, it hardly renders insignificant my observation that “anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and killing people.” His statement can be seen as a focus on the major pathogen afflicting European peoples, while my statement focuses on the fundamental element of our systemic immuno-deficiency.

Unz Review, 19 June 2017: “Russia and Islam: Connecting the Dots and Discerning the Future.”

Russian nationalists (as opposed to Russian patriots) did try their best to infect Russia with her own brand of Islamophobia, but that movement was defeated by an absolutely uncompromising stance by Vladimir Putin himself:

I need to say that, as I have repeated many times before, from its beginning Russia had formed as a multiconfessional and multiethnic state. You are aware that we practice Eastern Christianity called Orthodoxy. And some theorists of religion say that Orthodoxy is in many ways closer to Islam than to Catholicism. I don’t want to evaluate how true this statement is, but in general the coexistence of these main religions was carried out in Russia for many centuries. Over the centuries we have developed a specific culture of interaction, that might be somewhat forgotten in the last few decades. We should now recall those our national roots.”

Clearly, as long as Putin and those who support him remain in power, Islamophobia will have no future whatsoever in Russia. Russia will have to become the place where the Islamophobic myths will debunked ..

This site, Unz Review, is being treated by the Alt-Right as being in its friendly orbit.

True, the site does provide occasional useful information from which arguments for White interests can be derived, such as the study showing Harvard’s massive discriminatory bias against Asians (from which bias against Whites can be inferred also if you recognize and parse out the fact that Jews are not White), or the demographic projections that (((Steve Sailer))) puts up of Africa’s horrifying birth trajectory compared to Europeans, but you must look beyond, to the site’s chutzpah in projecting influence and goals upon the Alt-Right.

First, the black dress that they lay-out for our funeral:

Unz Review, “Will Sub-Saharan Africa’s Population Hit 10 Billion? 15 Billion?”, 27 June 2017:

Over at VDARE.com, a demographer points out that all my scary graphs lately have been based on the U.N. Population Division’s optimistic-sounding “medium fertility variant” in which total fertility rates magically converge toward 1.85 babies per woman by the end of the century.

But what if Africans just go on doing what comes natural? The correspondent points out that 10 billion is within reach under the assumption of constant fertility and mortality rates. Indeed, the UN offers a “constant fertility” table with, I believe, declining mortality due to technological advances in health care in which Sub-Saharan Africa’s population in 2100 is 15,175,708,000.

Fifteen billion Sub-Saharans is really not likely to happen, but my main point is: I’m not making these numbers up. These all come from the United Nations, not me.

Also, the UN offers a super optimistic “instant replacement fertility” table in which the total fertility rate drops to replacement today and remains that for the rest of the century. Due to demographic momentum, the population of sub-Saharan Africa still grows from 969 million in 2015 to 1,237 million* in 2035 to 1,444 million* in 2050 to 1,731 million in 2100.

        * He meant to write “billion” (but maybe getting nervous).

       
It’s easy to get blinded like a deer in the headlights by something like this. Take it to heart as a massive weapon that can be used against us, but don’t lose site of who’s taking the aim, the array of “equipment” (other people besides blacks) that they deploy and just how mean they are in doing it. Don’t be distracted into thinking they are on our side: Look under the dress -

We’ll provide this example and then treat this as an ongoing roller, as we say, to monitor just what the Unz Review is up to in its chutzpah. Have a closer look again at this first:

Unz Review, 19 June 2017: “Russia and Islam: Connecting the Dots and Discerning the Future”

Russia only has an observer status in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) due to the fact that she is not a majority Muslim country. Russia is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which brings together China, Kazakhstan , Kyrgyzstan , Russia , Tajikistan , Uzbekistan , India and Pakistan. Let’s look at the approximate number of Muslims in the SCO countries: China 40,000,000 , Kazakhstan 9,000,000, Kyrgyzstan 5,000,000, Russia 10,000,000, Tajikistan 6,000,000 , Uzbekistan 26,000,000, India 180,000,000, Pakistan 195,000,000. That’s a grand total of 471 million Muslims.



Add to this figure the 75’000’000 Iranians which will join the SCO in the near future (bringing the grand total to 546’000’000) and you will see this stunning contrast: while the West has more or less declared war in 1.8 billion Muslims, Russia has quietly forged an alliance with just over half a billion Muslims!

Russian nationalists (as opposed to Russian patriots) did try their best to infect Russia with her own brand of Islamophobia, but that movement was defeated by an absolutely uncompromising stance by Vladimir Putin himself who went as far as stating that:

I need to say that, as I have repeated many times before, from its beginning Russia had formed as a multiconfessional and multiethnic state. You are aware that we practice Eastern Christianity called Orthodoxy. And some theorists of religion say that Orthodoxy is in many ways closer to Islam than to Catholicism. I don’t want to evaluate how true this statement is, but in general the coexistence of these main religions was carried out in Russia for many centuries. Over the centuries we have developed a specific culture of interaction, that might be somewhat forgotten in the last few decades. We should now recall those our national roots.”

Clearly, as long as Putin and those who support him remain in power, Islamophobia will have no future whatsoever in Russia. [...] Russia will have to become the place where the Islamophobic myths will debunked and a different, truly multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic civilizational model offered as an alternative to the monolithic Hegemony dominating the world today.

Modern secularist ideologies have given mankind nothing except violence, oppression, wars and even genocides. It is high time to kick them into the trash heaps of history were they belong…

Ah yes, “Russia and Islam: Connecting the Dots and Discerning the Future” ... connecting the dots…Islam and Russia, the blood, bread and s/oil resource behind Israel/Judaism, they’ll protect us from “Islamophobia” ....they have given us nothing but peace ...and Christianity will keep us real, protect us from violence. ...let us pray together (not think together).

Do you believe this stuff is being circulated flagrantly among the Alternative Right!?!

Though he does a very admirable job of exposing Israeli misdeeds, it’s almost as if former CIA officer Philip Giraldi has been flipped to Active Measures. The site that he writes for, Unz Review, acts suspiciously like an organ thereof. Image, Philip Giraldi by Gage Skidmore.jpg

There is a saying that “the darkest spot - and therefore the best place to hide - is directly beneath the light.” It is apparent that many Jewish interests are in diaspora and they hide directly beneath the light of anti-Zionism.

This article at Unz Review, “How Israel Manages Its Message: A new app enables instant pushback,” provides significant insight into Hasbara‘s power and influence in the war of perception. But its author, Philip Giraldi, is wasting his insider insight (he’s former CIA officer) at the Unz Review. And it is apparent that he is welcome there because with Giraldi, as ever, the issue with Jews is strictly a matter of Zionism - which he criticizes very well, but apparently at the price of letting their diaspora influence to flee to Russia, the US and elsewhere - allowing their nefarious influence to go uncritiqued in diaspora, while their cover there is protected and deepened - for example, in collusion with The Russian Federation’s Active Measures in its infiltration of the European and American Right Wing.

Philip Giraldi, at Unz Review, 27 June 2017:

“How Israel Manages Its Message: A new app enables instant pushback”

Those of us who are highly critical of Israel’s ability to manipulate U.S. foreign policy frequently note how sites that permit comments on our articles are almost immediately inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar in both tone and substance. Given that it is unlikely that large numbers of visitors to the sites read the offending piece more-or-less simultaneously, react similarly to its content, and then go on to express their disgust in very similar language, many of us have come to the conclusion that the Israeli government or some of the groups dedicated to advancing Israeli interests turn loose supporters who are dedicated to combating and refuting anything and everything that casts Israel in a negative light.

The fact is that Israel is extremely active in an enterprise that falls in the gray area between covert operations and overt governmental activity. Many governments seek to respond to negative commentary in the media, but they normally do it openly with an ambassador or press officer countering criticism by sending in a letter, writing an op-ed, or appearing on a talk show. Such activity is generally described as public diplomacy when it is done openly by a recognized government official and the information itself is both plausible and verifiable, at least within reasonable limits. Israel does indeed do that, but it also engages in other activities that are not so transparent and which are aimed at spreading false information.

When an intelligence organization seeks to influence opinion by creating and deliberately circulating “false news,” it is referred to as a “disinformation operation.” But Israel has refined the art of something that expands upon that, what might be referred to more accurately as “perception management” or “influence operations” in which it only very rarely shows its hand overtly, in many cases paying students as part-time bloggers or exploiting diaspora Jews as volunteers to get its message out. The practice is so systemic, involving recruitment, training, Foreign Ministry-prepared information sheets, and internet alerts to potential targets, that it is frequently described by its Hebrew name, hasbara, which means literally “public explanation.” It is essentially an internet-focused “information war” that parallels and supports the military action whenever Israel enters into conflict with any of its neighbors or seeks to influence public opinion in the United States and Europe.

The hasbara onslaught inevitably cranks up when Israel is being strongly criticized. There were notable surges in activity when Israel attacked Gaza in 2009 and 2012, as well as when it hijacked the Turkish humanitarian relief ship the Mavi Marmara in 2011. The devastating 2014 Gaza fighting inevitably followed suit, producing a perfect storm of pro-Israel commentary contesting any published piece that in any way sympathized with the Palestinians. The comments tend to appear in large numbers on websites where moderation and registration requirements are minimal, including Yahoo! News, or Facebook and Twitter.

The hasbara comments are noticeable as they tend to sound like boilerplate, and run contrary to or even ignore what other contributors to the site are writing. They often include spelling and syntactical hints that the writer is not natively fluent in English. As is the practice at corporate customer support call centers in Asia, the commenters generally go by American-sounding names and use fake email addresses. They never indicate that they are Israelis or working on behalf of the Israeli government and they tend to repeat over and over again sound bites of pseudo-information, as when they falsely insist that Hamas was solely responsible for the recent Gazan wars and that Israel was only defending itself. The commenters operate in the belief that if something is repeated often enough in many different places it will ipso facto gain some credibility and create doubts regarding contrary points of view.

READ MORE...

Freddie’s Dead, das What I said.

SBDL, “$10.9 Million: The Combined Amount of Money Families of Freddie Gray, Michael Brown and Philando Castile Received in Settlements,” 26 June 2017:

Posthumously, it pays to be a black criminal:

Freddie Gray was a heroin dealer, who should have been in jail.

Michael Brown tried to kill Darren Wilson.

Philando Castile refused to cooperate with police.

All in all, in death they are worth a combined $10.9 million.

This is why we coined the term of America being irredeemable.

Freddie Gray: Baltimore to pay Freddie Gray’s family $6.4 million to settle civil claims, Baltimore Sun, 9-8-2015. 

Michael Brown: ‘Secret’ settlement in lawsuit over Brown’s death was $1.5 million, St. Louis Today, 6-24-17.

Philando Castile: Philando Castile Family Reaches $3 Million Settlement, New York Times, 6-26-17

Oh, and Tamir Rice’s family got $6 million from the city of Cleveland.

READ MORE...

Trump the great deal -maker not.

It means that Trump has helped to make matters much worse by encouraging Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to elevate his 31-year-old son Mohammed bin Salman to first in line to the throne - in a “dramatic reordering of the kingdom’s line of succession that will have far-reaching consequences for the key US ally and the Middle East as a whole.”...

CNN, “What Saudi Arabia’s royal reshuffle means for the world”, 21 June 2017:

What does it mean for the US?

The key US priorities in the Middle East are stability and predictability, and the appointment of the relatively inexperienced Mohammed bin Salman is undoubtedly a shift away from that.

As defense minister, the prince has taken a hard line with Qatar, Iran and Yemen—and the US should expect to find itself increasingly caught up in the ebb and flow of the region’s ever-increasing political tensions.

The current diplomatic crisis between the Saudis and Qatar—Riyadh is trying to isolate Doha over claims that the latter supports terrorism—is a study in diplomatic tightrope-walking for the US.

Washington is publicly backing the Saudis over the spat—which has been led on the Saudi side by the new crown prince—while at the same time maintaining its large military base in Qatar.

Now, with a more gung-ho crown prince set to take charge, it is fair to assume that the Saudis will double down on its hardline positions on Qatar, Iran and the Yemen conflict.

What does it mean for Qatar?

In the short term, it’s hard to tell. The message to Qatar is clear: Expect more of the same. Mohammed bin Salman’s appointment means that the hard line taken by the Saudis is here to stay—and that no older, wiser voices are going to swoop in and moderate the stance any time soon.

What does it mean for Iran?

The move will further destabilize an already dangerously unstable situation.

Earlier in June, the Iranians pointed the finger at Saudi for a terror attack in their capital, Tehran. They then used this as a reason to fire missiles into Syria—a shot across the proverbial Saudi bow.

Tension between the two has been slowly building recently, and Mohammed bin Salman has taken a hard line against Iran. “We are a primary target for the Iranian regime,” he said in one recent interview. “We won’t wait for the battle to be in Saudi Arabia. Instead, we’ll work so that the battle is for them in Iran.”

Again, without more experienced voices around him, the new crown prince will feel emboldened to pursue his vision of a larger Sunni alliance, in which Saudi Arabia is the unchallenged leading power in the Middle East. This could lead to a dangerous miscalculation.

What does it mean for the Yemen conflict?

This is a conflict that Mohammed bin Salman has played a large part in—assisting the Yemeni forces in fighting off Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. In some respects, it is his war and he has to see it through.

But this is more than about saving face; Saudi stability is linked to Yemeni stability and, for that reason, the kingdom needs to continue supporting Yemen.

The brutal reality is that the conflict in Yemen is an Iran-Saudi proxy war, and the new crown prince one of its architects. It is not going to be solved through diplomacy any time soon.

       

Will the new crown prince loosen up Saudi’s conservative culture?

Forget about the monarchy lifting the ban on women driving any time soon. That will happen on the Saudis’ time frame—regardless of international pressure to change the law—and whatever they say, it is not a priority. One day it will arrive, but it’s not coming fast.