Majorityrights News > Category: U.S. Politics

Visigrad Post, “Three Seas Initiative: Trump in Warsaw supports the project”, 8 July 2017:

Poland, Warsaw – Poland received the US President Trump alongside with representatives of the countries of the Three Seas Initiative, a recent Central European project. An “incredibly successful” meeting, according to Donald Trump.

For his first press conference abroad, US President Donald Trump came on July 5 and 6 to the Polish capital city of Warsaw. He attended the meeting of the Three Seas Initiative – reuniting the Baltic countries, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria-, organized by Poland.

“America is eager to expand our partnership with you. We welcome stronger ties of trade and commerce as you grow your economies and we are committed to securing your access to alternate sources of energy so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to a single supplier of energy,” told the US President referring to the former Russian monopoly of gaz supplying in the region.

From an economical project to a political one?

Poland and Croatia initiated the Three Seas Initiative (3SI) a year ago. All the twelve members of the 3SI were – except for Austria – under the rule of USSR until the fall of the iron curtain. Since 2007, all of them are part of the European Union, but remain less rich and developed than western member states. Also most of the critical roads, pipelines and rail services run on an east-west corridor, mainly due to former Soviet and current German dominance.

The 3SI’s goal is therefore to improve infrastructure and trade and to develop more and better connections in energy, transportation and digital communications along a north-south axis, so the members of the group might benefit from more mutual exchanges and investments, while strengthening their ties and getting more cohesive.

The 3SI has already some big plans; The Via Carpathia, a huge highway connecting the Baltic Sea ( Kalipedia, Lithuania ) to the Aegean Sea ( Thessaloniki, Greece ); The LNG terminals connecting pipeline, from Croatia to Poland (Croatia plans to finish the construction of its LNG terminal in Krk in 2019); And the construction of the pipeline from the Black Sea through Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria. All these heavy infrastructure projects are also pleasing China, which invests more and more in the region and takes also part in some of the improvements of infrastructure, for both Central European and Chinese interests.

Though, some critics rise their voices regarding the 3SI. As the core fo the 3SI, V4 (the Visegrád group: Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary) leads an anti-federalization fight and refuse the EU’s migrant policy, observers fear that the 3SI would become an extension of the V4 and would lead the EU to split.

US plan? Polish dominance scheme? Response to the two-speed Europe?

The summit of Warsaw, attended by Donald Trump, raised many questions. The 3SI is quite close to the Polish project of Miedzymore (Between the Seas) known as Intermarium. As such, some political observers see this new project, led by the current conservative PiS (Law and Justice) Polish government – which is close to Trump and its policies, and distrusts neo-cons – as a way to achieve regional domination with the support of the USA. Poland is the biggest military in Central Europe, and the main economics.

It is also recalled by commentators that the Intermarium is a kind of anti-Russian geopolitical device. Proposed during the interwar period, the Intermarium was aimed to block and counter the Soviet Union, and therefore one important thing is to be noted: while the Intermarium included nowadays Ukraine, the 3SI does not, and extends more towards the West, covering all Central Europe and Eastern Balkans; And adding another shore to the project.

Poland and Croatia are also known to have long-term good relations with the USA. It is therefore suspected that since the 3SI is a project initiated by both Croatia – and more exactly by its current President, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, senior officer of NATO – and Poland – one of the most ardent partisan of NATO – the 3SI might be planned also to serve US interests.

Even if the relation between the USA and Russia shows a relative improvement since the beginning of the Trump presidency, many suspect the USA to still wish to dispose of a European buffer zone at the gates of Russia. And they argue their point by recalling the recent American missile complex established in Poland and Romania and the current conflict in Ukraine.

During his speech, Trump expressed his satisfaction for the opening of the Polish LNG terminal to US suppliers of gaz. “The United States is proud to see that our abundant energy resources are already helping the Three Seas Nations achieve much-needed energy diversification,” told Donald Trump in front of the leaders of the 3SI, still mainly dependent on Russian gaz. He then quickly continued his speech by inciting CEEC to invest in US technology and weapons. Polish President Duda said he hopes for a long-term contract regarding supplying of liquid gaz.

READ MORE...

TVN24, “Permanent presence of American troops in Poland is our aim”, 5 July 2017:

“Security understood very broadly – military, energy security – will be the most important issue for President Andrzej Duda during his talks with U.S. President Donald Trump,” announced President’s spokesman Krzysztof Łapiński in “Fakty z Zagranicy”, TVN24 BiS. The minister was asked what the President’s plans were for his talks with the American President, what would be the most important issue for him, what he would like to hear from Trump or what kind of deal he would like to do with him.

“We know roughly what topics the talks will touch on. It is no secret that security [will be the key topic], security understood very broadly,” replied Łapiński. “On the one hand, military security, the presence of American troops in Poland, NATO, and on the other hand, energy security,” he explained.

“Security guarantees” “So, as of today, American soldiers are stationed [in Poland], and we are hoping that their presence will be permanent. It is important that these soldiers – whether they will be rotated once a year or once every two years, or three, this is less important. What is important is that American troops will be present in Poland, because this constitutes a security guarantee,” added Łapiński.

Asked how long the two Presidents’ tête-à-tête would be, he answered that it was expected to last about 25 minutes. Trump and Russia (http://www.tvn24.pl)

On Tuesday, in an interview for the wyborcza.pl website, Łapiński was asked if President Andrzej Duda hoped Trump would confirm the U.S. commitment to NATO during his visit to Poland. “Every day we see that President Trump and the United States confirm their commitment to the alliance, because American soldiers, who came here, are still stationed on the Polish soil. President Trump has never issued any signal or indication to justify any doubts, he never said that the presence of American soldiers in Poland was a bad idea,” the minister said.

The President on Trump’s visit: it cannot be ruled out that it will have historic significance

Asked whether the President expected Trump to announce permanent, rather than merely rotating presence of U.S. troops in Poland, he replied: “This is our aim. Whether such a declaration will be made now or at some other point is a question we should ask President Trump. The minister was also asked about charges made against Trump, concerning his alleged pro-Russian stance. Łapiński recalled the fact that one of Trump’s advisers, who had concealed his contacts with Russia, was dismissed. “President Trump himself, since he took office, has not given any indications that he was contemplating a deal with Russia over our heads,” stressed Łapiński. Źródło: tvn24.pl, wyborcza.pl/ tłumaczenie Intertext.com.pl (http://www.tvn24.pl)

Could have historic significance and impact on Poland indeed.

....as imposition of foreigners would: black, well financed and militarily equipped.

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.

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...

Washington Post, 23 June 2017:

“Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault”

In political terms, Russia’s interference was the crime of the century. It was a case that took almost no time to solve and was traced to Russian President Vladimir Putin. But because of the ways President Barack Obama and President Trump handled it, the Kremlin has yet to face severe consequences. Through interviews with more than three dozen current and former U.S. officials, The Post tells the inside story of how the Obama administration handled the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

ROUNDING UP THE REVELATIONS

•••••••••••

Stunning intelligence: U.S. intelligence agencies had sourcing deep inside the Russian government capturing Vladimir Putin’s direct instructions to damage Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning and help elect Donald Trump.

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.

Alt-Right publisher Daniel Friberg from a promotional speech for right-wing 2015

Acrimony on the Alt-Right/New Right, etc. Right: predictably, the inherent instability of The Right emerges. For those who like soap operas, the right is perhaps good for that. But their instability rather highlights the preferability of our platform for organizing nationalists in two way accountability to our interests (to us and from us); against foreign antagonists, whether elite or rank and file; and against traitors among our own, whether elite, or rank and file.

There isn’t a lot of consensus among the right - their primary orientation, against “The Left” and “equality”, was given to them by brackets (viz. Gottfried 2008), adopted then and only became the “common sense enemy” by consensus since the YKW allowed them to do that. Brackets, those in service of brackets, and those willing to sell our people-out for personal gain or sheer ideology are rife in all camps of the right.

Alt-Right, 16 June 2017:

“GREG JOHNSON TURNS DOWN DANIEL FRIBERG’S CORDIAL OFFER TO HAVE A COFFEE AT STARBUCKS”

In the latest bit of juicy infighting here in the Alt-Right, Daniel Friberg, the head honcho of intellectual (but fashy) book publisher Arktos has been defriended on Facebook by Greg Johnson, the mysterious “voice without a face” who runs the fashy (but intellectual) Counter-Currents webzine and book publisher.

The defriending follows weeks of behind-the-scenes bickering and accusations that Johnson had been bad-mouthing Friberg behind his back.

In an attempt to clear the air, Friberg who lives in Budapest, Hungary, heard that Johnson was in town on a low-profile speaking tour, and cordially invited him to have a face-to-face meeting, posting the following message on Facebook:

  Hey Greg Johnson, you have been attacking my character publicly and behind my back for close to a year now. Considering we’re neighbors here in Budapest, how about I buy you a latte at Starbucks; you can say all these things to my face. What do you think?” - Daniel Friberg

Alt-Right: “The Attacks on Arktos,” 17 June, 2017:

               

Alt-Right and Zero-Hedge are reporting this evacuation as having been allowed by The US Military. ZOG being what it is, it is not inconceivable that they would allow them to escape and leave them well equipped.

However, given that Alt-Right and Zero-Hedge are effectively organs of Russian Active Measures at this point, neither can we simply take their word for it as if presenting the whole truth and nothing but…  as if The Russian Federation’s hands are clean in this.

Reports from a year ago highlighted the accusation that Isil was allowed to leave from Mosul unmolested to go to Syria for another stab at another phase of “Clean Break” implementation - against al-Assad in that case.

They cite the “anti-Russian newspaper, The Guardian”:

“An anonymous source claiming to a Russian newspaper something as conspiratorial as the U.S. directly aiding ISIS militants may seem a dubious, but since the offensive was launched on Monday of this week, this has been the reality on the ground.”

“According to Army Lieutenant General Talib Shaghati, as reported by anti-Russian newspaper, the Guardian, ISIS militants are already fleeing Mosul to Syria. This was further confirmed by the Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, who said that if ISIS were forced out of Mosul, they would likely go on to Syria.”