[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.
“The promotion of secure tolerance will be permanent and irreversible.” - Moshe Kantor, Manifesto on Secure Tolerance, 2011.
In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting. This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted “the gorilla.” Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They’d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.
When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the ‘Invisible Gorilla’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.
There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.
I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one’s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. “Soft” censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis. Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don’t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let’s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish? Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?
If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn’t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal’s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves. I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.
As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).
Although masquerading as a world-renowned “peace activist,” Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.
Let’s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” The instinct is to describe such as phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “Judaic.” Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?
Kantor argues that “tolerance,” which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect “tolerance,” we should therefore impose “security requirements” (oppressive laws) that focus on “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.” Thus, Kantor’s creation of the idea of “Secure Tolerance,” which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor’s own words:
Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:
Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).
Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.
And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.
There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor’s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “tolerance” and outlawing dissent. Kantor’s appeal here to law-making being “the most democratic way,” is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor’s proposals into becoming law. The Western public has never heard of Kantor’s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, “permanent and irreversible,” the “making of which, once started, is never to stop,” in order to deal with, in his words, the “neo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments” and therefore represent “destructive manifestations of anti-globalism.”
Further theater is observed in Kantor’s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “is a product of tolerance.” Of course, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop. Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end. Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all? It’s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states’ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a “return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust.” His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the E.U. should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution “is to make the E.U.’s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. … Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes.”
Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “Holocaust denial.” He is making speedy progress on all fronts.
In what some people on social media are calling attempted murder, a teenage boy in Cork was brutally assaulted on Saturday night in a vicious beating and stabbing attack by a number of other youths.
The incident took place around 10:30pm on Saturday night. It’s understood that the boy is currently being treated in Cork University Hospital and is said to be in a stable condition after he received a bad beating to his face and stab wounds to his back.
A video of the animalistic attack has gone viral on social media and has left some people ill from the savagery it depicts.
So far, Gardaí have arrested one youth in connection, with what many who have witnessed the attack on film, describe as attempted murder.
During the video of the attack, the boy can be seen with blood across his face and in a dazed state while lying on the ground as one youth turns him to his side and begins to repeatedly stab and slash his back, the attacker even takes the care to lift his jacket first so his blade can penetrate the child as deep as possible. The young boy is stabbed in the lower back, roughly where his liver is or possibly the lung area.
The attack is filmed and narrated by another youth who appears to have a London accent and it also shows a young girl attempting to shield the boy from the thugs, begging them to stop, but the youth filming wants to get her out of the way so he can continue to shout “look at all the blood, fam”.
In an unrelated incident last week, a Limerick teenager was savagely beaten by youths who appear to be shouting at him about “400 years of slavery”.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 13 October 2019 06:13.
Another Misunderstander Of Islam strikes
4 Oct., by Irish Savant
Where’s Inspector Clouseau when you need him? Because the famous bumbling French detective could hardly do worse than the Paris police investigating the recent mass killing at their HQ. They’re totally baffled as to the killer’s motive.
INVESTIGATORS ARE COMBING an IT staffer’s computer today for clues as to why he stabbed four colleagues to death at police headquarters in Paris. The 45-year-old man killed three men and a woman in a frenzied 30-minute attack that ended when he was shot in the head. A search of the couple’s house found no evidence that the man, who converted to Islam about 18 months ago, had been driven to his criminal deed by radical religious ideology. Shortly after the killings, Paris prosecutor Remy Heitz said anti-terror investigators were not involved in the murder probe. All possible motives were being examined, sources have said, including the scenario of a personal conflict at work.
Which probably means that the sleuths failed to find a statement from the killer (a black immigrant from Martinique) explicitly stating ‘in the Name of the all-merciful Allah I will go in to work in the morning and and stab everyone I can find’. Therefore nothing to do with the Religion Of Peace. Just another Misunderstander Of Islam. He must have thought that when the Koran enjoined him to ‘Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them’ (Qur’an 2:191) the ‘sacred’ text meant, well, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. And like most misunderstanders he seemed, apart from the mass murdering bit, to have been a swell guy. According to a fellow worshipper “he was a very quiet person. I used to see him going to the mosque but he practised (his religion) in a normal way” . Well he sure did, didn’t he? And remember Jihadi John, the notorious ‘English’ head-chopper for ISIS? He’d been described by his imam as ‘a gentle, spiritual boy’. Indeed.
So what’s to be done? Well I believe I have a solution. Reinterpret the sacred texts in the light of latest thinking and research. You know the way Pope Francis reinterpreted the Bible to mean that homosexuality and all kinds of degeneracy are fully in accord with that book’s teachings. I’ve been working hard and this is the result to date. I seriously believe that when complete it has the potential to eliminate mass murders stemming from misunderstanding the Religion Of Peace.
My initial attempt.
Quotation: “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Qur’an 9:123
Scholastic reinterpretation: “Make friends with your infidel neighbours”.
Quotation: “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Qur’an 5:33
Scholastic reinterpretation: “All discussion on religion should be open and tolerant.”
Quotation: “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water;melt their skin and bellies.” Qur’an22:19
Scholastic reinterpretation: We’re working on that one. But meanwhile lads lay off the hooks and rods and melting bellies and all that stuff.
For Britain leader Anne Marie Waters has posted a message thanking Morrissey for his support of the controversial nationalist party.
The former Smiths frontman has made headlines recently after he was seen sporting a For Britain badge while on tour in the US, before also wearing one while performing on Jimmy Fallon on US TV.
The nationalist party was founded by the anti-Islam activist Anne Marie Waters after she was defeated in the 2017 UKIP leadership election. The controversy and association for Morrissey began when he discussed accusations of racism and alleged connections between Halal meat and ISIS. He also said that London Mayor Sadiq Khan “can not talk properly”. He later issued a new statement in which he said he “despised racism and fascism” and voiced his support for Muslims, while also advocating For Britain.
Now, Waters has shared a new message of gratitude for the singer on Youtube: “Thank you so much for your support since the UKIP leadership election,” she said. “Thank you for giving us so much publicity.”
She continued: “I can tell you that the traffic to our website exploded with the story breaking of you wearing the For Britain button badge, which you have been wearing everywhere from what I can see. We have sold out of those, but the good news is we have more, and they have been selling like hot cakes, so thank you very much for doing that.”
Waters added: “Thank you, Morrissey. I hope to meet you one day. Thank you, Daily Mail. Keep up the hysterical smearing. It’s having the opposite effect. You are driving people to us.”
Explaining his support of For Britain last year, Morrissey said that he followed them as they were an upset to the status quo of Conservative and Labour governments. He strongly denied accusations of racism.
“I have been following a new party called For Britain which is led by Anne Marie Waters,” said Morrissey. “It is the first time in my life that I will vote for a political party.
Finally I have hope. I find the Tory-Labour-Tory-Labour constant switching to be pointless.
“For Britain has received no media support and have even been dismissed with the usual childish ‘racist’ accusation. I don’t think the word ‘racist’ has any meaning any more, other than to say “you don’t agree with me, so you’re a racist.” People can be utterly, utterly stupid.”
Calling for more free speech in the political realm, Morrissey continued: “Anne Marie Waters seeks open discussion about all aspects of modern Britain, whereas other parties will not allow diverse opinion. She is like a humane version of Thatcher … if such a concept could be. She is absolute leadership, she doesn’t read from a script, she believes in British heritage, freedom of speech, and she wants everyone in the UK to live under the same law.
He added: “I know the media don’t want Anne Marie Waters and they try to smear her, but they are wrong and they should give her a chance, and they should stop accusing people who want open debate as being ‘racist’. As I said previously, the left has become right-wing and the right-wing has become left – a complete switch, and this is a very unhappy modern Britain.”
Many took to Twitter to criticise Morrissey’s support of For Britain after he was seen wearing their badge.
“My former friend sporting a For Britain badge, a party violently anti-Islam, filled with ex-BNP and ex-EDL, pro-privatisation, far right and prone to exploiting tragedies to disseminate divisive anti-immigrant rhetoric online,” wrote journalist Dave Haslam on Twitter, sharing the image. “What happened to ‘It takes guts to be gentle and kind’?”
Morrissey will release his new covers album ‘California Son‘ on Friday May 25.
Angela Nagle (7:53): They think (also) that women making the completely voluntary choice to have children with a non-White man is White genocide (laughs) you know, it’s just so ridiculous, I mean…
Matt Christman (8:14): “It’s not of their own volition.”
Angela Nagle (8:14): laughing
Matt Christman (8:15): Porn! Jewish produced porn has brainwashed them into thinking that big dicks are more pleasurable to have sex with.
Angela Nagle (8:22): Continues to laugh in approval of the sarcasm.
Matt Christman (8:24): They literally believe that by the way.
It has always been theoretically uncomfortable when White advocates white knight or try to counter “the misogyny” of White advocacy regarding White mudsharks by suggesting that they are sheerly brainwashed by cultural Marxsim.
I have tended to lay off these arguments as I believe there is truth to cultural coercion and veritable psy-ops of cultural Marxism and demoralization through Jewish porn; and it is a help to take a step away from completely deterministic, objectivist arguments; better still, as opposed to the White genders blaming one another, to look critically at Jews, who have been egregiously critical of us and divisive of White men and women. These angles are true enough to consider along with being helpful to take the pressure off of gender antipathy and to put the social realm and culture (by which I mean rule structured practices) into play.
However, the cultural Marxism angle has always been insufficiently explanatory when dealing with “voluntary” miscegenation and White genocide. The little discourse above provides occasion for correction.
Angela Nagle might believe that outbreeding is not killing European genotypes; here White advocates haven’t done that bad in showing that it (coercion that suppresses breeding of a race) can meet with the UN definition of genocide.
Matt Christman might think that all White advocates believe miscegenation and outbreeding is only a result of brainwashing; and maybe some do. But his and Angela Nagle’s mockery exposes a puerility and weakness of their own argument, which calls for exploitation through the added sophistication of the hermeneutic circle.
White females, as any females, do have base drives that can incite genetic competition, miscegenation, incline toward strong black men with big weenies (though even I, in my distaste and disrespect for blacks on the whole, would not reduce miscegenation to only these causes), an inclination that can be activated under certain circumstances - particularly by pandering to them in atavistic circumstances such as the disorder of modernity. However, for a self proclaimed leftist, Nagle is making a surprisingly reductionist, liberal, right wing argument in saying “it’s completely voluntary.” There are definitely cultural rule structures that are encouraging and promoting it; even more significantly, there are heavy taboos against criticizing it; literal laws against taking critical and opposing stances against it. These are cultural/ political violations of even the most reasonable and natural extent for mature White men (and women) to protect their kind.
This would be a part of the pleasure pain matrix that Matt Christman invokes. As White men overcome their right wing reactionary position and adopt the reality of social construction and the hermeneutic circle, they will not have to accept the “way it is-ness” of Matt Christman’s “white knighting” on behalf of mudsharks (likely overcompensating pandering for the fact that he is ugly - about as ugly as the typical black woman - and desperate to be in the good graces of Jews, if not part Jewish himself).
As we step into hermeneutics, we move beyond the tropism of the high contrast porn episode of the gargantuan black weenie and the White woman. But first, porn does some corrective favor in the sense that it is compelled to show that we White men can be quite well hung - so, if that’s what a woman feels she needs… Finally, porn does not tend to reveal the fact that blacks are not necessarily heavy hung; I don’t need to belabor this point here, except for the fact that their Not having a big weenie does not suddenly make them OK to intermarry with by our estimation. And as a very fundamental point, we are not discriminating against White guys with big Weenies.
Our kind was averse to blacks as children, before sexuality was even an issue, let alone weenies. After that it was the presumtuousness, arrogance, hyper-assertiveness, aggression, brutal antagonism and violence against Whites. Things that the puerile might find titillating, perhaps puerile girls, but not us. Along the way, we noticed subtleties of our female co-evolutionaries which we found compelling; and the physicality of blacks generally displeasing by contrast, let alone their behavior and fall-out of their way of life.
We did not expect that we would be blamed for everything and told we owe them everything - including those we might hope to be our wives and daughters. We never could have imagined that we would be expected to accept this in servitude. We thought others would naturally think as we do, and though some naive adults thought it was a good idea to integrate us with blacks, when we got old enough, that we would join the rest of normal Whites who want to get away from them and be with Whites.
That didn’t happen in any articulate way. And we have to confront not only the fact of cultural Marxism, but that our enemies are playing the objectivist angle where it works against us - heavily now that they’ve hoodwinked the Alt Right and other large tracts of popular culture to argue against PC and “the left.”
We have to confront the fact of thrownness, that our group co-evolutionaries can miscegenate, but by the same token, thrownness, we are thereupon able to invoke and collaborate on cultural rule structures; it is not something that we have to accept as just the way it is, merely a voluntary choice that owes nothing to the tens of thousands of years of evolutionary struggle that went into our differentiation; along with its hundreds and thousands of years of social capital.
Even if they argue that some black guy might provide a more pleasurable moment and episode than some White guy, might be more confident (and coherent of identity, in part as a Jewish backed thug coalition) in the Jewish provoked disorder of modernity, where the rule structure of our guard and classificatory boundary is down, we can easily rebut that plenty of us White guys will provide not only quite fine moments, but as we rebuild our full class, a far more pleasurable and satisfying way of life than the blacks manage.
With that, rather than mocking and laughing at the servitude of black interests that has been imposed upon White men, we will be having the last laugh as we send miscegenators and their half cast broods to live with blacks and the way of life that they create. They will either accept that or the recognition that they are indeed the supremacists and slave masters who need to be overturned by any means necessary. Do you know Angela and Matt, a White guy might not want to be a slave, paying for the babies of the mudsharks who destroy the genome bestowed them through tens of thousand of years of struggle, might just find a White woman’s face and skin color more appealing, a European’s way of life more pleasurable?
Angela Nagle claims to be open to talking to people who are dealing in topics forbidden by PC. We have offered to talk to her and that remains a standing invitation.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 08 August 2017 18:10.
Tara McCarthy ♥️@TaraMcCarthy_14 Jul 22
Replying to @MajorityRights
Anyone who talks about the JQ gets shut down. I don’t have a choice.
daniel sienkiewicz @MajorityRights Jul 22
Replying to @TaraMcCarthy_14
It’s not Not talking about the JQ that’s the big problem, it’s going along with their wish to make “The Left” the enemy that is the problem.
In ordinary language, “left” corresponds with unionization of people against elitist bullying and betrayal.
With J’s on top, they cooperate with right wing sellouts to argue that “The left” is the enemy as they don’t want us organizing against them.
What has been called “the Left” by the (((controlled media and academia))) is liberalism as it applies to Whites. It is not a White Left.
(((They)))‘ve associated it with all manner of absurdity as they do not want Whites deploying the concept of unionization.
They do not want us to have the means of accountability and compassion for OUR marginals that would popularize our cause.
They want to say its all about “equality” but White Left ethno-nationalism doesn’t have to mean anything so absurd for us.
It doesn’t mean people can’t be wealthy; or that people who are not contributing as much to the social capital aren’t accountable as well.
It doesn’t deny the reality of race, genetics, science, differing human abilities and limitations..
But we do have some agency and choice, we can unionize as left ethnonationalists to protect ourselves in coordination with other (coalitions of) ethno-nationalists.
Alt Right/Lite is a (((paleocon))) scam to co-opt White reaction into the alienating, manipulable that’s just-the-way-it-isness of the right.
..“that’s just the way it is” - just so happens (((these people))) are on top, its “just nature”. The problems are being caused by “THE Left” (now that its convenient for the YKW and right wing sellouts in cooperation to say-so).
Illustration: Is “The left” imposing Islam on Indonesia and Turkey? No. Left nationalism’s bitterly opposed to Islam &vis versa
daniel sienkiewicz @MajorityRights Jul 22
Replying to @TaraMcCarthy_14
Matt Christman
