[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 29 July 2021 22:31.
A monument to the race-betrayal and general malignancy of the Westminster political class. A monument to the betrayal of every native British child forced to “learn” self-hatred in that ugly cell in place of being inspired by the many deeds of greatness of the wartime generation.
From the Telegraph:
A national Holocaust memorial will be built next to Parliament after ministers overrode local opposition to approve the project.
Chris Pincher, the housing minister, signed off on the £100 million proposal on Thursday to build the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, which will be located in Victoria Tower Gardens, Westminster.
... The decision overturned a previous ruling by Westminster Council, which last year decided to reject the plans in the face of local opposition and claims that it contravened planning rules on size, design and location.
While the plan for a national memorial was first set in motion by David Cameron in 2013, the location has been criticised by some groups, including Historic England, on the grounds there are believed to be important archaeological remains located at the site.
The fiercest opposition has come from the local resident group Save Victoria Tower Gardens (SVTC), which claims that the open space in the area should be protected as a local amenity.
The slippery and sleek, Israel-mad ministerial figure of Robert Jenrick oversaw the decision, formally taken by the Housing Minister Chris Pincher. One is married to a Jewish lawyer and is raising his children as Jews. The other one seems to be what used to be called a confirmed bachelor. There doesn’t seem to be anyone anywhere in the political class who is remotely interested in doing the right thing by us and, in this case, throwing out this aggressive proposal. The tax-payer will now foot the bill for three-quarters of the cost.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 22 October 2019 05:38.
Humphreys makes the case that Nero was actually a much more benign, benificant and popular ruler than portrayals through the Jewish popularizing perspective of Christianity would have people believe. Nero actually transformed Rome from a wooden to a marble city; refining Roman life in many ways, in fact, with the development of parks, recreation and culture; thereby displaying contemplation and concern for matters far better than any preoccupation with persecuting Christians. It was thus necessary for Jewish interests to fabricate through Christianity, the popular notion of Nero as evil.
Part 2, 9:14 -
Demonizing of Nero Begins:
The Jews, in rebellion from 66, identify the personification of evil - Beliel - with the Roman emperor. In coded “revelation” the Beast is Nero. His death stiffened Jewish resistance.
Messianic sectarians concoct an apocalypse (later called the Testament of Hezekiah) which equates Belial with the Antichrist, an “indwelling” spirit of evil.
The last years of Nero’s reign saw the Jews in rebellion.
In Rome, following Nero’s suicide, political strife divides the nation…
The Flavians, humble soldiers, were desperate to legitimize their new regime (by daunting contrast to the popular ruler, Nero). Hence the completion by Vespasian of the temple of Claudius. For the Flavians, Nero had been a weak, effeminate ruler. They had little interest in his cultural conquest, but gave the biggest, bloodiest festival of all to the Roman people; the amphitheater, lavishly financed by the plunder of the Jewish temple.
A Nation on Fire: America in the Wake of the King Assassination
Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2009
“Events have unmistakably shown that any municipality in the country with a Negro population is susceptible to a racial outbreak.” — From an FBI report dated May 26, 1967
Since becoming a Counter-Currents writer, I’ve come to see that the mainstream historical narrative of the 1960s is unique in how incorrect the conventional understanding of it is. What I mean by backwards is this: The big issue of the 1960s, the Vietnam War, has today shrunk to insignificance. The Vietnam War did have an impact on American culture, but not nearly as much as, say, the US Civil War, or even the Spanish-American War of 1898. But what was small in the 1960s is big today. Then, the 1965 Immigration Act appeared to be an unimportant administrative adjustment; but today, immigration is the Queen of all social issues. Meanwhile, the “civil rights” revolution and the resulting backlash is the unacknowledged King of all social issues.
Officially, “civil rights” triumphed in the 1960s through “civil disobedience,” but that is a misunderstanding. “Civil rights” triumphed in the 1930s and 1940s as a result of a number of desegregation cases and Negro uplift policies. In the 1950s, whites began to resist, to the point that “civil rights” gains could only come at the point of a bayonet. And by the late 1960s, whites built new (but shakier) segregation defenses.
“Civil disobedience” in itself was a problem in that it is not really civil at all. It is a tactic of breaking small laws to achieve a political objective, similar to how terrorism is used, and it can quickly get out of hand. Essentially, blacks had a standing green light to riot throughout the 1960s, probably due to the fact that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations responded very quickly and favorably to any Martin Luther King civil disobedience stunt.
Additionally, the morality of “civil rights” is backwards. The movement had the appearance of morality to the vast majority of whites in its early days, but by 1965 black violence, basic black social pathologies, and black militancy had swept away the moral façade. In other words, the riots which followed Martin Luther King’s assassination were the last stand of the “civil rights” movement, not the painful birth of some sort of post-racial paradise. The story of these riots is told in Clay Risen’s page-turning book, A Nation on Fire.
MLK was not a genius & civil disobedience isn’t civil
A Nation on Fire is the first mainstream book on the “civil rights” movement that I’ve read that even gets close to hinting that the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was not the saintly genius that the mainstream media made him out to be.[1] Risen describes King approaching his final days in Memphis thusly:
The past few years had not been kind to the civil rights leader. Since his success at Selma and the resulting passage of the Voting Rights Act in ‘65, King had been trying to broaden the scope of his movement, both in reach – out west, up north – and scope – taking on housing discrimination, poverty, and the war. But the public, the media, and the political establishment increasingly saw him in a negative light, a has-been who achieved great victories earlier in the decade but had no answers for the new issues of the day. Even Walter Fauntroy, his loyal Washington representative, called King a “spent force.”[2]
King was a spent force with no answers for newer issues because the consequences of his ethos had clearly created out-of-control problems by 1968. At the start of the 1960s, blacks dressed well, appeared to behave well in public, and honest white “civil rights” sympathizers could imagine that they and the blacks were fighting “unjust laws” with “civil disobedience.” By the end of the 60s, a considerable number of blacks were dressing like revolutionaries and impossible to appease in any way.
As a result, by the time of King’s assassination, the white public had started to sour on “civil rights.” The turning point was the Watts Riot of 1965. Watts wasn’t the first black riot of the 1960s, but it happened in a place where the economy was good and there was no long-standing history of “racism,” as in the South.[3]
As word trickled out from Memphis that King was dead on April 4, 1968, sub-Saharans began to riot on an enormous scale across the nation. Risen gives a personal account of the situation: His mother had to flee her office in Washington, DC with other whites in a packed bus. Her father, a soldier with eyesight so poor they wouldn’t send him to Vietnam, was pulled away from his desk job, given a rifle, and told to defend his base against rioting blacks.
Burning down cities they cannot build & how a riot works
Risen focuses most of his narrative on the riots in Washington, DC, but he also examines what happened in other places, such as Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore. The roots of the riot were in black migration from the rural South. Washington, DC, along with all the great cities of the North, had experienced a large growth in their black populations since the First World War. The trend accelerated through the 1940s. In all cases, in those places where blacks showed up in massive numbers, jobs fled – especially after the Second World War. Risen shows the statistics regarding jobs, black migrants, and so on. From this, he draws a Tragic Dirt conclusion: That is to say, blacks were arriving in a geographical location where jobs were leaving through some sort of natural process beyond anyone’s control. It is probably more accurate to conclude rather that blacks in large numbers create an environment where an advanced economy cannot function.
But even as problems with blacks increased in the late 1950s and early ‘60s, only the radical whites seemed to notice. George Lincoln Rockwell, for example, frequently talked about what blacks were doing to DC. Nobody listened. And in the meantime, blacks began to gain control over DC’s city government. At the time of King’s assassination, DC’s mayor was a black named Walter Washington. He pioneered DC’s Africanized political ecosystem which only ended when the Bush I administration got rid of Marion Barry in an FBI sting operation in 1990.
Black management of any institution has the same effect as untreated high blood pressure on a person’s body: At first there are no symptoms, and then one’s heart explodes. In 1968, Washington, DC was beginning its slide into becoming a slum, which persisted until the end of the Clinton administration. The key thing is that black leaders – unless they are being supported by whites, and even then it’s iffy – make a series of small, bad decisions that compound over time. Mayor Washington was only part of the problem, though. The main issue was that the large black community made many small, bad decisions every day. And when word came that King was dead, blacks in general made a terrible decision regarding how to respond, and DC’s black mayor was quickly overwhelmed.
When the riot broke out, DC was unprepared. Civil servants did not know what to do, gave and received conflicting orders, and panicked. Whites simply fled. The roads became parking lots. Some drivers abandoned their vehicles and walked to the suburbs. The DC National Guard was called up, and federal troops from the “Old Guard” were deployed to protect the Federal District. The “Old Guard”’s regular duties were normally purely ceremonial, but their mission quickly shifted in the face of the scale of the violence. The Pentagon called up support troops from the other bases around DC to serve as infantry. The Marines were called in. The Maryland National Guard deployed to DC’s edge to keep blacks from burning the suburbs.
The deployment expanded from DC to other cities, especially Baltimore, involving massive troop movements. Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne were rushed to cities around the nation, and the III Corps Artillery was deployed, along with brigades from the 5th Mechanized Infantry Division. Baltimore is unique in that the whites organized on their own during the riots: Armed groups of whites drove into the city and fired at rioting blacks, while white shopkeepers armed themselves.
Over the next few decades, sociologists would study the riots and offer explanations of how these riots begin and get out of hand. According to them, a social disturbance becomes a riot due to a “Schelling incident” – one in which people in a crowd realize they will be rewarded by that crowd for violence rather than punished for it. In DC, the Schelling incident occurred when the crowd saw looters break the windows of the People’s Drug Store. Soon, DC was in flames. Most of the deaths in the riot were the result of arson.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 02 February 2019 15:44.
(((Schultz/Starbucks vulture capitalism - governmental collusion with NGO’s and tribal interests)))
I haven’t visited Morgoth’s for several months, and not for more than a moment in over a year… but having taken a peek today, a fine comment jumped out…
Augur Mayson rendered a fine comment in response to the question of why people hate journalists.
In regard to his example that the (((media))) conveniently promulgated Harold Schultz’ crypsis, referring to him as “a white man”, Augur might have added discussion of which (((Frame Games))) spilled the beans - it is still on line: [url=The Perplexing Case of Starbucks The Perplexing Case of Starbucks) about the scheme that Starbucks is involved in, making deals with black NGO leaders in order to buy-up inner city property on the cheap and then gentrifying it to turn huge profits in sales and rent. ...while these blacks were moved in as block busters to begin with by tribal elders who benefited by driving out Whites, taking advantage of driving down property values and welfare slum lording.
A Starbucks in your neighborhood means this racket is coming to your city.
One wonders, given Starbucks property vulturism, if Trump and his cronies don’t figure into the Schultz deal - as Kumiko surmised, they are mostly about a second tier of wealth, based on real estate investment, particularly U.S., and their concerns as such.
* I took the liberty to correct the malapopriative term, “left”, for him and replaced it with what it should be - “liberal”
Augur Mayson • 6 days ago
Because journalists enhance Jewish racial crypsis, is my current reason. They’re statists posing as rebels. The major media outlets either through commingling with the state or via self-interested owners of a certain ((( race ))) typically parrot whatever ridiculous claims are coming out of the government, either about domestic social issues or correctness of foreign policy. They are not some unelected but real check against government abuses. They are attack dogs. They are megaphones for the rich and the state. They are overwhelmingly leftistsliberals* and disproportionately Jewish.
For example, in America now the presidential election in 2020 is shaping up as follows: Trump for the Republicans, because it’s unprecedented for a party to not run an incumbent, unknown candidate for the Democrats, maybe Mrs. Clinton, maybe Joe Biden, maybe someone else, they have a young gay guy they’re trying to talk up now. And the only big independent as yet talked about in the media is former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who’s a Jew, who has used Starbucks to push progressive social policies. For example a few Blacks got thrown out of a Starbucks for presumed loitering; media uproar ensued, Schultz declared to do the exact opposite in future, now they have beggars out front, heroin needles in one bathroom and people giving birth in the other.
So this article in the Judenpresse in America talks up Schultz and says point blank he’s a White man.
“And at 65, he’d have to do that as an older white man who’s never run for office before and has zero national name recognition.” https://www.theatlantic.com...
False, as a CEO of a major corporation he had major exposure and name recognition only second to say Hollywood stars and politicians and media. So the journalist paints Schultz as an unknown (read: underdog, as in, a fetching backstory) and says he’s White when he’s really a Jew.
This is why I hate journalists. Plus if you have a Jewish war you’d like to wage in the desert for no good reason you can always count on the likes of CNN or the BBC to carry the load of b.s. you’re pushing.
NEW YORK: Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz, credited with taking the company from small beginnings to an international behemoth, is stepping down as CEO to focus on new high-end coffee shops, handing the reins to Chief Operating Officer Kevin Johnson.
Schultz, 63, will continue to serve as chairman of the Board and will be appointed executive chairman effective April next year. He handpicked 56-year-old Johnson, the company’s president, chief operating officer and a 7-year member of the Starbucks Board of Directors, to serve as the new CEO.
The Seattle-based company said in his new role, Schultz will focus on the “next wave of retail innovation”, design and development of Starbucks Reserve Roasteries around the world, expansion of the Starbucks Reserve retail store format and the company’s social impact initiatives.
“I will remain Starbucks executive chairman, focusing full-time on the incredible growth opportunities we have in expanding Roasteries and building out our portfolio of Reserve stores and on Starbucks social impact agenda which will be a significant part of the focus going forward,” Schultz said in an investor and media conference call yesterday.
Schultz, who was named by Fortune magazine this month in its list of Businessperson of Year is credited with doubling the company’s revenues since he returned for his second stint in 2008, surpassing USD 20 billion for the first time over the past 12 months
Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/55746311.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
(((Schultz/Starbucks vulture capitalism - governmental collusion with NGO’s and tribal interests)))
