Majorityrights News > Category: U.S. Politics

Public opinion about supposedly ‘vulnerable’ Islamist men on an international level has become so ‘toxic’ that the Guardian no longer wants to offer up its comments section as a vehicle through which people all around the world can say things that the Guardian editors and journalists don’t agree with.

See here:

Guardian, ‘The readers’ editor on… handling comments below the line’, Stephen Pritchard, 31 Jan 2016 (emphasis added):

[...]

Certain subjects – race, immigration and Islam in particular – attract an unacceptable level of toxic commentary, believes Mary Hamilton, our executive editor, audience. “The overwhelming majority of these comments tend towards racism, abuse of vulnerable subjects, author abuse and trolling, and the resulting conversations below the line bring very little value but cause consternation and concern among both our readers and our journalists,” she said last week.

As a result, it had been decided that comments would not be opened on pieces on those three topics unless the moderators knew they had the capacity to support the conversation and that they believed a positive debate was possible.

The policy would be worldwide, applying to our UK, US and Australia offices, as the issues were global. And, where they were open, it was likely that threads would close sooner than the typical three-day window.

[...]

This was not a retreat from commenting as a whole, she said; it was an acknowledgement, however, that some conversations had become toxic at an international level – “a change in mainstream public opinion and language that we do not wish to see reflected or supported on the site”.

[...]

Totally exploitable.

This is almost like a return to the 1970s, except with a massively expanded infrastructure for communication, which results in black propaganda and grey propaganda being pushed by all sides of the political spectrum until one side finally cries out in pain and shuts everything down.

The difference now is that if the Guardian staff refuse to facilitate these conversations because they find it to be too painful, it won’t make them go away, it just means that these conversations will be shifted to other locations which are not under the watch of people in their political camp.

One thing that social democrats have never been able to understand is how to win at Information Operations (IO). They had forgotten that some audiences are more sophisticated than others, and that in a completely globalised communication environment in which the internet ‘remembers everything’, their attempts to fabricate a false reality to support their political positions in different temporal and geographical contexts will always be exposed. There will always be some commenter who will ask “Why did they say this thing here, but then this other thing over here? It’s contradictory! It makes no sense at all!”

For example, if a news organisation, such as perhaps the Guardian, or the Huffington Post, writes articles in its North America edition that try to induce feelings of guilt and paralysis among the Americans of European descent by taking the position that the Pilgrims who landed in North America on the Mayflower were actually a collection of religious fundamentalists who ended up carrying out genocide and were subsequently hated and reviled by the Amerindians, then that is an anti-Pilgrim line they can take. It’s based on reality so a person could indeed say it. But they would have to be consistent about it.

A problem emerges for that newspaper if it should happen to mysteriously become pro-Pilgrim in a Middle East and North African context, where the Islamist reactionary ‘refugees’ who are fleeing from the Middle East and North Africa to find ‘a new life’ in Europe, are presented as being beyond reproach because of their similarity to the American Pilgrims. American Pilgrims who are suddenly recast as noble heroes fleeing from a supposedly repressive Europe to find ‘a new life’ in the Americas. ‘Pilgrims fleeing repression’ is also a narrative based on reality. But its moral content and implied policy prescriptions are 180 degrees opposite to that of the aforementioned anti-Pilgrim narrative.

It’s 2016, social democrats. If you constantly contradict yourselves like that, then it becomes possible to find the key which is held in common between the different kinds of propaganda you are creating, by simply comparing them to each other. That’s something which is pretty trivial to do in the era of digital media. So that happened, and will continue to happen.

I would say to everyone who has been struggling against social democrats, that this latest move to restrict speech which is being carried out by the Guardian should be regarded as a victory of sorts over the Guardian. They are in fact conceding that the people in the various ethno-nationalist camps—globally—have a level of influence over mainstream public opinion which has been able to move the mainstream out of lockstep with social democrats.

Counterpropaganda involves shining a light in the darkness, and the Guardian’s desire to retreat into the darkness when hit with that light only further reveals the perniciousness of their propaganda campaign, and also its fundamental weakness.

It’s true. I think you know where this article is going to go.

One of the most notable features of the Donald Trump phenomenon which is being feted by just about every ethno-nationalist website—except Majorityrights, thank goodness—is the remarkable opportunism and irresponsibility which seems to appear at every turn.

The Donald Trump phenomenon is a presidential candidacy phenomenon which was initiated by the actions of one man, Donald Trump himself, who is trying to subsist off of the pre-existing electoral lobbies inside the Republican party. It is not a movement. It’s Donald Trump saying things that he thinks will convince the various contradictory segments of the Republican party voting base to imagine that he empathises with them while you wait with bated breath to see what he’ll say next, so that you can write yet another breathless article on how the Trump train ‘cannot be stopped’.

Excited People

Just because Donald Trump has managed to weaponise the slack-jawed voters of Iowa against their former owners—for now—does not mean that some great revolution has arrived or that there is a ‘train’ that is going somewhere. Donald Trump has merely succeeded in getting people who identify as Republican to become excited about voting for the Republican party.

That doesn’t make them suddenly not a bunch of disorganised idiots who believe idiotic things. It means that they are now merely an excited bunch of disorganised idiots who believe idiotic things excitedly.

Economic Power Precedes Political Power

Now, some of you are reading this and thinking to yourselves, “Why have these people at Majorityrights always got to ruin everyone’s fun?”

Your fun has to be ruined, because it is harmful. Attaching yourself to a political candidate like Donald Trump, and running articles that praise him for an entire electoral season, even though you know that you have no means through which you can control him during his hypothetical presidency because you have no lobby, is a pretty bad idea.

It is said that economic power precedes political power. Where does economic power come from? Not strictly from an abundance of wealth, but rather, from controlled scarcity. For example, if I had control of all water in a country, my power over its governance would be unrivalled. But if everyone could create disparate water-fountains everywhere without my permission, then my power would vanish almost immediately. The same logic applies to political movements, if they are to have any power in the material world at all, then they have to be able to make credible bargains.

In the context of American ethno-nationalist movement figures who claim to appreciate the merits of National Socialism or some variant of it, which kind of economic power should they be aiming to control? They should be aiming to control the one thing which is in abundance everywhere. The people’s labour power. Most people in the United States have only their labour power that they can either choose to give to an employer or withhold from an employer, and any movement that were to gain the ability to switch labour on or off at will and at mass, would be one of the most powerful lobbies in the United States. Given that labour union density in the United States hovers around a pathetic figure like 10%, it is not like there is much competition in that realm from the liberals or anyone else.

Despite this, year after year Americans do nothing other than wait for the next white saviour to descend and save them, while paradoxically festooning their websites with the symbols of a labour movement that actually emerged as a ‘workers party’ from the ground up and not from the top down.

Celebrating for no reason

I’ve been looking at the on-the-ground reporting that Matt Forney has been doing, as he’s been chronicling his adventures in Iowa and a lot of what he’s written I’ve found to be extremely well done and I have no intention of deriding his efforts in that regard.

However, I want to quote something from an article he recently wrote because I think that he has in fact highlighted a large part of the problem without having been aware that it is a problem:

Return of Kings, ‘Donald Trump’s Presidential Campaign Is The Biggest Political Uprising In Decades’, Matt Forney, 27 Jan 2016 (emphasis added):

[...]

Finally, Trump has expanded the conservative base to a degree that no other politician in the U.S. has done in eons. During the introductory speeches, one of Trump’s campaign co-chairs asked how many people in the audience had never voted in the caucuses before. Close to half the crowd’s hands went up. Trump has done the seemingly impossible: get people who are tuned out of the political process involved again, and supporting conservative principles at that.

It’s clear that Donald Trump’s combination of nationalist, conservative policy proposals, his personal charisma and his willingness to speak the truth will carry him through the presidential primaries. But the real question is whether he can win Iowa, the only one of the early contests where he’s lagged behind: he’s been trailing Ted Cruz in the polls for the past month, though he’s been posting solid leads in the past week.

[...]

This is precisely the danger. Life has been returned to a party which ought to actually have died. Furthermore, what has been occurring are not ‘policy proposals’, more so than a disparate collection of forcefully repeated statements and semi-comical tweets, which no ethno-nationalist group has any power to hold him to after he is elected.

In Iowa, who was he actually making deals with? Christian Zionists and Evangelicals. Many of them are highly motivated and are unfortunately not actually stupid at all. Christian leaders do not see Trump as their first choice for president, in fact only 2% of them view him in that way. However, they are nothing if not pragmatic. They realise that they have the ability to command large numbers of people who sit in pews and are receptive to messages that come across the pulpit about who to vote for. They also have an economic bazooka which stems from that organisational power, which enables them to sit down at the table with the highly cynical Donald Trump, and make actual deals with him.

Trump has been calling out to those people as though to bring them to the table from since the very beginning of his campaign. The message that “If I’m president, you’re going to see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me.”, which was a probing attempt to see what the reaction would be, was his first outreach. Getting a response that looked like it was backed by a voting block with solid fundraising power (albeit funds that he may not necessarily need but would be helpful to him nonetheless) then led to him increasing the appeal to a new level with his statement on how he intends to “protect Christianity”. Next he went on to say that he believes that “Christianity is under siege” and that Christians “don’t exert the power” that he thinks they ought to have.

Trump was calling for Evangelicals to make a deal with him. He may get it, but it will be a two-way street, he will have to give them something in order for them to give him something. They see it as a case not where Trump will somehow grant them cultural leadership again, but rather, a case where Donald Trump can be induced to create the environment in which they would be more free to operate. They enter into alliance with him cautiously and with actual representatives on the ground who know what disgusting things they want and how to get those disgusting things.

Platform melted

That ability to go out and make deals and threats, is an ability that American ethno-nationalists do not have, because American ethno-nationalists haven’t put anything onto the table that they could threaten to remove from the table. Instead, it was as though Donald Trump approached the American ethno-nationalists and they said about it, “It was love at first sight, we looked at Trump and our platform melted away.”

Finding people who are willing to shill for you 24/7 can often be difficult. Generating a good SEO plan with the kind of agility required by a political candidate whose positions change depending on who they are artfully making deals with on any given day, would be gruelling work with an exorbitant cost. Mercifully for Donald Trump, he has almost the entire Alt-Right’s followers who reside in the nexus where Twitter, 4chan, Youtube, Facebook, and Reddit meet, who will do all of that work for him for free, and he can ultimately treat them in any way he likes because he is in no way structurally beholden to them. Trump can get amazing results on the internet for $0.

Donald Trump’s social media accounts could generate interest all day long, simply by entertaining ‘controversial’ ideas and statements. Those accounts could then do even better by mocking the responses of ‘outraged’ social-democratic news sites afterwards. Donald Trump’s Twitter and Facebook could become home to 4chan Pepe the Frog memes, which are often witty and which save the campaign staff the effort of having to invent their own memes. That actually happened. Why then should they do any work at all?

‘Everything is totally fine and stuff’

Another example of a great misunderstanding, comes from the Daily Stormer, which carried a triumphalist article after Donald Trump initially received a boost in Iowa. The boost was attributable to the Sarah Palin endorsement, and the mathematics of Evangelicals realising that Trump may be the person they would need to make a deal with.

Somehow the Daily Stormer interpreted it like this:

Daily Stormer, ‘Trump Jumps 11 Points in Iowa, Dominating All’, Andrew Anglin, 24 Jan 2016 (emphasis added):

[...]

It is looking like Trump is actually going to be the next President, short of some insane and unpredictable event.

I’m deeply surprised Jews haven’t already launched some serious tricks.

[...]

Is this actually real life?

The Daily Stormer people seem to be unaware that the Jews already launched a collection of serious tricks. Those tricks are known in aggregate as ‘the Donald Trump campaign’.

BBC News, ‘Iran nuclear deal: ‘New chapter’ for Tehran as sanctions end’, 17 Jan 2016:

Iran “has opened a new chapter” in its ties with the world, President Hassan Rouhani said, hours after international nuclear sanctions were lifted.

The move came after the international nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, said Iran had complied with a deal designed to prevent it developing nuclear weapons.

Most Western governments hailed the move but Israel accused Tehran of still seeking to build a nuclear bomb.

Four dual US-Iran nationals were released from jail by Iran on Saturday.

They include Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, who was arrested in 2014 and jailed in November for espionage.

Early reports said all four had left the country, however unnamed US officials later said that while “those who wished to depart Iran have left” and that one of the four, Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari, was not on the plane headed for Switzerland.

• Five key points of the nuclear deal
• Will Tehran now get a McDonald’s?
• Iran’s press ecstatic as sanctions end
• Iran frees US citizens in prisoner exchange
• Who is freed US reporter Jason Rezaian?

A fifth American, Matthew Trevithick, was also been released separately.

The US offered clemency to seven Iranians being held in the US for sanctions violations.

Nuclear sanctions have been in place since 2006, on top of other sanctions stretching back decades:

• The economic sanctions being lifted now were imposed progressively by the US, EU and UN in response to Iran’s nuclear programme
• The EU is lifting restrictions on trade, shipping and insurance in full
• The US is suspending, not terminating, its nuclear-related sanctions; crucially, Iran can now reconnect to the global banking system
• The UN is lifting sanctions related to defence and nuclear technology sales, as well as an asset freeze on key individuals and companies
• Non-nuclear US economic sanctions remain in place, notably the ban on US citizens and companies trading with Iran, and US and EU sanctions on Iranians accused of sponsoring terrorism remain in place

A flurry of Iranian economic activity is anticipated:

• Nearly $100bn (£70bn) of Iranian assets are being unlocked
• Iran is expected to increase its daily export of 1.1m barrels of crude oil by 500,000 shortly, and a further 500,000 thereafter
• Iran is reportedly poised to buy 114 new passenger planes from the Airbus consortium

What it means for Iran’s economy and world markets

UN, US and EU sanctions have hit Iran hard for years.

Mr Rouhani said everyone was happy with the deal, apart from those he described as warmongers in the region - Israel and hardliners in the US Congress.

“We Iranians have reached out to the world in a sign of friendliness, and leaving behind the enmities, suspicions and plots, have opened a new chapter in the relations of Iran with the world,” he said in a statement on Sunday morning.

The lifting of sanctions was “a turning point” for Iran’s economy, he added, saying the country needed to be less reliant on oil revenues.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, an architect of the deal, said it had been pursued “with the firm belief that exhausting diplomacy before choosing war is an imperative. And we believe that today marks the benefits of that choice”.

However US Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said the Obama administration had moved to lift economic sanctions “on the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism”.

And Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “Without an appropriate reaction to every violation, Iran will realise it can continue to develop nuclear weapons, destabilise the region and spread terror.”

‘Expectations are high’ - Amir Paivar, BBC Persian business reporter

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says the lifting of sanctions is a victory for the Iranian nation. It is one for him too.

Mr Rouhani had pledged to strike a deal ending the nuclear standoff. He just delivered his biggest promise. This will boost his allies in parliamentary elections next month.

But hardliners will not sit and watch. They call the shots in domestic, security and cultural areas. There is always danger of a backlash unless Mr Rouhani’s faction shares the post-sanctions financial benefits with them.

Expectations are high, and managing them will be a difficult job. The impact of lifting of sanctions in livelihoods of many Iranian will not come overnight. Rouhani now says he will focus on boosting foreign direct investment and Iran’s non-oil exports. Easier said than done.

The prospect of Iran doubling its crude oil exports has contributed to the continuing fall in the oil price. Benchmark Brent crude closed below $29 (£20.3) on Friday. Share prices in Saudi Arabia, the Arab world’s largest stock market, fell more than 6% following the lifting of sanctions.

The IAEA said it had installed a device at the Natanz plant to monitor Iran’s uranium enrichment activities in real time, in order to verify that uranium enrichment levels were kept at up to 3.67% as agreed in the deal with world powers.

As part of the deal, Iran had to drastically reduce its number of centrifuges and dismantle a heavy-water reactor near the town of Arak, both of which could be used in creating nuclear weapons.

Iran has always maintained its nuclear programme is peaceful, but opponents of the deal say it does not do enough to ensure the country cannot develop a nuclear bomb.

This is of course a wonderful development. Despite all the obstacles that were placed in the way, a sane and encouraging outcome has emerged.

As a retrospective look back, I’ll offer you all a set of links to accompany this story:

• [Bloomberg Business, ‘Mideast Stocks Plummet as Iran Plans to Boost Crude Exports’, 17 Jan 2016]
• [Bloomberg Business, ‘Iran Kicks Off Plan to Boost Oil Exports as Sanctions Lifted’, 17 Jan 2016]
• [DefenseOne, ‘Your Opinion About the Iran Deal Means Nothing to Obama ‘, 19 Mar 2015]
• [Bloomberg Business, ‘Asia Readies for Iran Oil Bargains on Potential Nuclear Deal’, 23 Mar 2015]
• [Al-Monitor, ‘Rouhani’s Cabinet Seeks New Balance in Iranian Policies’, 12 Aug 2013]
• [New York Times, ‘Iran’s Leaders Fall Into Line Behind Nuclear Accord’, 07 Apr 2015]
• [Ring of Fire, ‘Even Fox News Thinks Louie Gohmert’s Plan to Bomb Iran is Ridiculous’, 30 Mar 2015]
• [The World Post, ‘Zbigniew Brzezinski: Cooperation On Iran Deal Boosts U.S.-China Ties’, 09 May 2015]
• [Youtube, ‘PBS - Zbigniew Brzezinski on Iran & Israel’, 25 Jan 2012]
• [Youtube, ‘VOA London - Lord Lamont: Britain should renew the diplomatic relations with Iran’, 31 Jul 2013]
• [Arstechnica, ‘American spy malware infecting Iranian networks is engineering marvel to behold’, 29 May 2012]
• [Reason.com, ‘Israeli Hackers Installed Sophisticated Malware on U.S. Computers. Why Doesn’t Anyone Care?’, 04 Jul 2015]
• [Majorityrights.com, ‘The NSA collects information on Israeli lobbyists, Jews scream bloody murder.’, 16 Jan 2016]
• [Euractiv, ‘EU turns to Iran as alternative to Russian gas’, 25 Sep 2014]
• [Asian Development Bank, ‘Falling Oil Prices in Asia and the Pacific: Potential Gains for Importers, Opportunities for Exporters’, 14 Jan 2015]
• [Asian Development Bank, ‘Cheap Oil Can Benefit Asia - ADB Report’, 17 Dec 2014]
• [International Atomic Energy Agency, ‘New IAEA Uranium Enrichment Monitor to Verify Iran’s Commitments under JCPOA’, 16 Jan 2016]

Those links should cover the highlights on how things ended up like this, and who the key winners and losers have been.

Broadly speaking, the winners have been all oil importers, particularly the United States, the European Union, and certain oil-importing countries in South America and South East Asia.

The losers have been all oil exporters, but especially Saudi Arabia and Russia. Israel also emerges as a loser, having failed to accomplish most of its objectives.

Guardian, ‘Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama created Isis, says Donald Trump’, 3 Jan 2016:

      ....others would cite the YKW.

“The Iran deal is one of the worst deals ever…. they’ve violated it already…  Iran wants to take over Saudi Arabia, they always have…they want the oil, they’ve always wanted that… you watch, I predicted a lot of things, I say get the oil, take the oil, keep the oil..  I’ve been saying that for three years and everybody’s saying, ‘oh, I can’t do that, it’s a sovereign country.’ There is no country! They have a bunch of dishonest people, they’ve created Isis.. Hillary Clinton created Isis with Obama!”

“I am the most militaristic person in this room”

Trump is pandering to the same kind of audience that W. Bush relied upon to get The U.S. into these Jewish wars.

“I’m going to build-up our military so strong that we’re never going to have to use it..  ...probably.”

“I said don’t go into Iraq and destabilize it….now you have Iran taking over Iraq, second largest oil reserves in the world”

“We are weak and we are pathetic and it has to be stopped.”

BBC News, ‘Libya militia chases away US troops’, 18 Dec 2015 (emphasis added):

Photos posted on Facebook claim to show US troops getting back on their plane shortly after landing.

US forces flown to Libya to support government troops had to leave after landing because of demands from a local militia group, US officials say.

It follows reports that 20 US special forces troops, equipped with advanced weaponry, landed on Monday at an airbase in western Libya.

The troops chose to leave “in an effort to avoid conflict”, a US Africa Command (Africom) spokesman told the BBC.

Libya has been in chaos since the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

The US forces had travelled to Libya in order to “foster relationships and enhance communication with their counterparts in the Libyan National Army”, Africom spokesman Anthony Falvo told the BBC.

The soldiers left without incident, he added.

Analysis: Rana Jawad - BBC North Africa correspondent

It is undoubtedly an embarrassing revelation for the Americans.

The timing of the incident, so close to the long-awaited deal signed by Libya’s rival parliaments on Thursday, has fuelled speculation among Libyans over what they see as the ulterior motives of the US and other Western nations.

There has been increasing suspicion that foreign troops are looking to establish their presence on the ground in Libya, especially with the so-called Islamic State grabbing more territory in recent months.

Reactions on social media ranged from accusations that the US was promoting one side of the conflict, to questions over the West’s long-term military aims in Libya.

Western nations have repeatedly spoken of their intent to support Libyan armed forces to help secure the country and combat extremism.

However, if nothing else, the incident chiefly serves as a reminder of the challenges foreign military forces will face trying to operate in a country with no central security structure.

Mr Falvo did not elaborate further on why the troops’ landing at al-Wattiya airbase had seemingly not been cleared with the relevant Libyan groups on the ground.

The airbase is not controlled directly by the Libyan army, but by a militia affiliated to it, which may explain the apparent breakdown in communication.

Unnamed Pentagon officials told national media that US forces had been “in and out of Libya” for some time, operating in an advisory, but not a combat role.

Photos of the secret mission were published on the official Facebook page of the Libyan Air Force, saying the troops had landed “without prior coordination”.

It described the forces arriving “in combat readiness wearing bullet proof jackets” carrying night-vision goggles, GPS devices and assault rifles.

Libya’s rival power bases (as of August 2015)

Libya has two rival governments, one based in the main city, Tripoli, and the other about 1,000km (620 miles) away in the port city of Tobruk.

Representatives of the two groups signed a deal in Morocco on Thursday, agreeing to form a national unity government, however their respective leaders voiced their reservations.

With the collapse of law and order in most of Libya, following the disastrous events of the Arab Spring, and the disastrous choice by some western leaders to utilise NATO as air cover for the reactionary Islamist forces that were unleashed by the process, the situation still remains unmanageable after 2011.

In the Greco-Roman era, the Roman Empire held the coastline of what is now known as modern day Libya, because it was a strategic imperative for them to hold it in order to more adequately manage the traffic on the Mediterranean Sea.

In light of the mass migration crisis, or the ‘immivasion’ as some people have taken to calling it, it may be time to consider that imperative again.

How many times have we heard from liberals that racial profiling is not only the worst thing ever, but also that in the present year we shouldn’t let age-old racial prejudices influence decisions about security and law enforcement?

Apparently that maxim of theirs only applies when it’s time for liberals to defend Arab Muslims.

It certainly doesn’t form any part of their calculus when dealing with East Asians, who they seem to know how to do the grossest and crudest profiling against with the straightest of faces:

BBC Newsbeat, ‘K-Pop group Oh My Girl detained at LA airport on suspicion of being sex workers’, 11 December 2015 (emphasis added):

Oh My Girl.

A pop group has flown back to South Korea after officials in Los Angeles thought they might be sex workers.

The eight members were travelling to America for an album cover shoot but were detained for 15 hours in customs.

A statement from the group’s record company, WM Entertainment, said authorities held them after going through their costumes and props.

“They seem to have mistaken them as sex workers,” said a spokesman.

Oh My Girl, who formed in March, are thought to be back in South Korean capital Seoul after being released by officials at Los Angeles International Airport.

WM Entertainment says it is taking legal advice in the US to find out whether the band’s detention was legal.

The record company also said there might have been an issue with the type of visa the band members presented.

They had also been booked to perform at a gala event in Los Angeles on Saturday.

It’s unclear if they will try to return to America to complete their album cover shoot.

Oh My Girl (or OMG) brought their debut single Cupid out in April with a second mini-album and title track Closer released in October.

The band members are all aged between 16 and 21.

South Korean pop music, known as K-pop, is dominated by girl and boy bands whose members are often in their teens, although most are older.

In 2012, the South Korean government clamped down on over-sexualised performances by threatening to give higher age ratings to films, music videos and TV shows which exaggerated the sexuality of younger singers and bands.

It’s almost as though the only way to get into western liberal countries these days, is to make sure that you are an Arab Muslim with extremist Islamist beliefs.

Healthline have ‘discovered’ the story that it’s unhealthy to live in an integrationist multicultural and multi-ethnic society. Of course, they won’t phrase it that way, because they instead prefer to draw the tortured conclusion that it’s supposedly your fault for not loving it.

See here:

Healthline, ‘Being a Racist Is Bad for Your Health, and Everyone Else’s’, 11 December 2015 (emphasis added):

Racism has very real health consequences, and not just for the people targeted by it. It turns out even racists pay a price for their intolerance.

A recent study in the American Journal of Public Health found that all people—regardless of race—living in communities with high levels of racial prejudice were more likely to die young than people living in more tolerant places. And the higher mortality wasn’t just attributable to violence or poverty.

“Racial prejudice affects community health significantly even after controlling for individual- and community-level socioeconomic status, such as poverty, level of education, and racial composition,” study author Yeon-Jin Lee of the University of Pennsylvania, told Healthline.

The study doesn’t prove that racial prejudice causes premature death. But researchers suggest that racism can weaken a community’s social resources or social capital. For example, racial tensions may limit a community’s ability to come together and advocate for policies and services that promote health.

“Low levels of prejudice are associated with greater trust and diminished threat at the neighborhood level,” Lee said, “[while] high levels of prejudice likely discourage residents from developing social capital with their neighbors, given reduced levels of trust and mutual reciprocity.

Other research has found that when prejudice people interact with members of other ethnic groups, the level of the stress hormone cortisol rises in their blood. Cortisol is part of the body’s “flight or fight” response to perceived threats.

“Harboring racist feelings in a multicultural society causes daily stress,” Elizabeth Page-Gould, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, wrote in an essay for the Greater Good Science Center in Berkeley, California. “This kind of stress can lead to chronic problems like cancer, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes.”

Social Attitudes Connect to Health

With the country embroiled in public debate about race, religion, and immigration, the data suggests our current state of social turmoil literally could be killing us. Donald Trump’s campaign for the Republican nomination has dominated media coverage, in large part because of the anti-immigrant rhetoric.

After the mass shooting in San Bernardino on December 2 by a couple reportedly loyal to Islamic extremists, Trump proposed banning all Muslims from entering the United States. Trump’s critics say this xenophobic attitude, like his derogatory comments about Mexican immigrants, creates an atmosphere of hatred and bigotry.

But it does seem to be a popular proposal, at least in some quarters. A Bloomberg Politics poll earlier this week found that almost two-thirds of likely Republican primary voters were in favor of Trump’s Muslim ban.

“We believe these numbers are made up of some people who are truly expressing religious bigotry and others who are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything they think might make us safer,” pollster Doug Usher said.

It should be obvious to all readers at Majorityrights that the guaranteed way to avoid these alleged problems would be to stop trying to create an integrationist multiculturalist society.

There are war mongers operating behind the scenes of power whose motives highly resemble those of the Cold War era: Russia, adjacent geopolitical objectives, resource acquisition and control are seen as central problems which require strong military force.

What is insufficient in John Marshall’s investigative critique and whistle blowing article, however, is a failure to make clear the facts that:

1) The particular people, including at NATO, behind these strategies - viz., war with Russia, control in the Middle East and the borders of Russia - do not identify as White; and are not acting with White (i.e., European peoples) interests in mind first and foremost.

2) In normal ethno-nationalist terms, Russia is, in fact, a problematic nation, which is not circumscribed to their, let alone to our common White/European interests; not committed to cooperation in geopolitical ordering; border and demographic defense; and provisioning of The European Ethno-National Region and its necessary alliance with The Asian Region and its Ethno-Nations.

The point is, these are very real, not trumped-up concerns, and White Nationalism must take the helm in cooperation with Asian Nationalisms to handle these concerns.

I will venture an outline of why that is and how it might come about in few days. I will do this in anticipation that Kumiko will contribute her considerable insight to correct oversights, flesh-out a myriad of details and augment points where emphasis is needed.

My perspective on this is that we’ve got the stuff of war at hand all around us already. It is now up to us to wrest the lines from the hands of Jews and others who do not identify with Whites, to shape and craft the battle lines in White Nationalist interests instead. I will argue that that will require European and Asian cooperation and, in terms of their prior imperialist overreaches and capacity to offer cooperation, a significantly chastened U.S. and Russia.

First, a look at how “obscure people’ can start wars” by John Marshall - talking about Victoria Nuland and her fellow Jewish and neocon cohorts, though, of course, he does not name the YKW as such:

Consortiumnews.com, “How ‘Obscure’ Bureaucrats Cause Wars”, 15 Dec. 2015

Exclusive: Official Washington’s anti-Russian “group think” is now so dominant that no one with career aspirations dares challenge it, a victory for “obscure” government bureaucrats, like Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, as Jonathan Marshall explains.

History isn’t just made by impersonal forces and “great men” or “great women.” Sometimes relatively obscure men and women acting in key bureaucratic posts make a real difference.

Thus, the international crisis in Syria traces back in part to the decision of President Barack Obama’s first ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, to reject peaceful rapprochement with the Damascus regime in favor of “radically redesign[ing] his mission” to promote anti-government protests that triggered the civil war in 2011.

                                                         

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

In much the same way, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland did her best to foment the Feb. 22, 2014 putsch against the democratically elected Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych, “while convincing the ever-gullible U.S. mainstream media that the coup wasn’t really a coup but a victory for ‘democracy,’” as journalist Robert Parry wrote last July.

Nuland, a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and wife of neoconservative luminary Robert Kagan, helped achieve in Ukraine the kind of “regime change” that her husband had long promoted in the Middle East through the Project for a New American Century.

Nuland now has a new counterpart in the Department of Defense who bears close watching for signs of whether the Obama administration will keep escalating military confrontation with Russia over Eastern Europe, or look for opportunities to find common ground and ease tensions.

On Dec. 14, Dr. Michael Carpenter started work at the Pentagon as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, with added responsibilities for the Western Balkans and Conventional Arms Control. He replaced Evelyn Farkas, who stepped down in October.

Farkas was a firebrand who accused Russia of “shredding international law and conventions that have held firm for decades.” In a call to arms straight out of the early Cold War, she wrote, “Russia’s challenge is so fundamental to the international system, to democracy and free market capitalism that we cannot allow the Kremlin’s policy to succeed in Syria or elsewhere.”

In a remarkable display of “projection” — ascribing to others one’s own motives and actions — she declared that “Russia has invaded neighboring countries, occupied their territory, and funded NGOs and political parties not only in its periphery but also in NATO countries.” Its goal, she asserted, was nothing less than “breaking NATO, the EU and transatlantic unity.”

Farkas declared that the United States must continue its military buildup to deter Russia; provide “lethal assistance” to countries on Russia’s periphery, including Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova; and step up economic sanctions “to pressure Russia . . . so that U.S. national security interests and objectives prevail.”

With people like that helping to shape official policy over the past three years, it’s no wonder U.S.-Russia relations have hit such a low point. Might her replacement, Michael Carpenter, take a less confrontational approach?

Carpenter moved to the Pentagon from the office of Vice President Joe Biden, where he was special adviser for Europe and Eurasia. Previously he ran the Russia desk at the National Security Council and spent several years in the Foreign Service.

Carpenter has kept a low public profile, with few publications or speeches to his name. One of his few quasi-public appearances was this April at a symposium on “Baltic Defense & Security After Ukraine: New Challenges, New Threats,” sponsored by The Jamestown Foundation.

His prepared remarks were off the record, but they were greeted warmly — “you’ve hit it right on the head” — by discussant Kurt Volker, former NATO ambassador under President George W. Bush and foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain. McCain has demanded that the United States arm Ukraine to fight Russia and he helped inflame the Ukraine crisis by meeting with the anti-Semitic leader of the country’s right-wing nationalist party for photo-ops in 2013.

During a short Q&A session at the symposium, captured on video, Carpenter declared that “Russia has completely shredded the NATO-Russian Founding Act,” a choice of words strikingly reminiscent of Farkas’s denunciation of Russia for “shredding international law.” He accused Russia of “pursuing a neo-imperial revanchist policy” in Eastern Europe, inflammatory words that Sen. McCain lifted for an op-ed column in the Washington Post a couple of months later. Carpenter also indicated that he would personally favor permanent NATO bases in the Baltic states if such an escalation would not fragment the alliance.

The fact that Carpenter chose to make one of his few appearances at the The Jamestown Foundation is itself highly telling. According to IPS Right Web, which tracks conservative think tanks, the foundation’s president, Glen Howard, “is the former executive director of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, a largely neoconservative-led campaign aimed at undermining Russia by bolstering U.S. support for militant nationalist and Islamist movements in the North Caucasus.” He has also been consultant to the Pentagon and to “major oil companies operating in Central Asia and the Middle East.”

The foundation was formed in 1984 by “a leading Cold Warrior close to the Reagan administration,” with the blessing of CIA Director William Casey, to provide extra funding for Soviet bloc defectors to supplement meager stipends offered by the CIA. Its board members today include former CIA Director Michael Hayden, and previous board members included Dick Cheney and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, a prominent neoconservative activist.

All this matters hugely for several reasons. Increased confrontation with Russia, particularly along its highly sensitive Western border, will continue to poison relationships with Moscow that are crucial for achieving U.S. interests ranging from Afghanistan to Iran to Syria. Ratcheting up a new Cold War will divert tens or hundreds of billions of dollars into military spending at the expense of domestic priorities.

Most important, the action-reaction cycle between NATO and Russia in Eastern Europe is dramatically increasing chances for an unwanted, unneeded and disastrous war involving the world’s great nuclear powers. Ian Kearns, director of the European Leadership Network, noted in a recent commentary for the Arms Control Association:

“Despite protestations by both sides that the exercises are aimed at no particular adversary, it is clear that each side is exercising with the most likely war plans of the other in mind. The Russian military is preparing for a confrontation with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a confrontation with Russia. This does not mean either side has the political intent to start a war, but it does mean that both believe a war is no longer unthinkable. . . .

“Too few appear to recognize that the current cocktail of incidents, mistrust, changed military posture, and nuclear signaling is creating the conditions in which a single event or combination of events could result in a NATO-Russian war, even if neither side intends it.”

In such a way, the actions of relatively minor figures in history – if their provocations are not reined in – can lead the world to cataclysm.