[Majorityrights Central] Three possible forms of a Ukrainian victory ... and a Russian defeat Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 16 April 2026 16:36.
[Majorityrights Central] Empires, the Chinese Mind, a theoretical nationalism of ethnicity Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 14 February 2026 01:54.
[Majorityrights News] Moscow Times: Valdai residents report no sign of drones attacking Putin residence Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 30 December 2025 11:33.
[Majorityrights Central] Thoughts on Mark Collett’s strategy for nationalism in the British future Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 24 October 2025 15:01.
[Majorityrights Central] Principles, parts, processes of ethnic nationalism, Part 1: inflection? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 31 July 2025 12:03.
In the upper echelons of the Trump administration, hawkish voices on Iran predominate—most notably Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton. But as tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated over the last few weeks, there’s been another, far different voice in the president’s ear: that of Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
A source familiar with the conversations told The Daily Beast that, in recent weeks, the Fox News host has privately advised Trump against taking military action against Iran. And a senior administration official said that during the president’s recent conversations with the Fox primetime host, Carlson has bashed the more “hawkish members” of his administration.
While some Fox News hosts have argued that a conflict with Iran would be justified, Carlson has consistently criticized U.S. military intervention abroad, particularly in the Middle East. In recent weeks, he has questioned whether war with Iran would be “in anyone’s interest.” Last month, he publicly chided Bolton, saying he was intentionally escalating tensions, and that a potential conflict would “be like Christmas, Thanksgiving, his birthday wrapped into one.”
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 08 June 2019 15:42.
The sum total of the “exoneration”: the word of a psycho. The SJW’s verdict: Award the criminals $41 million.”
Just as I cannot imagine fabricating confessions to convict innocent kids, I cannot imagine a media that would put out so dishonest a story that it led to four guilty kids being awarded 41 Million dollars. It is reminiscent of feudalism, but this time where different preferential rules, laws and “news” apply to blacks.
I’m referring to a PBS documentary about false conviction of The Central Park Five, which I reported at Majorityrights in an article originally titled “Coerced Confessions of The Central Park Five” and now titled, Confessions of The Central Park Five.
Not being a journalist by trade - in fact, looking upon the news section as a chore to be relegated to the background of theoretical concerns - the strategy enlisted here, rather, for getting at the truth of the matter on news stories, is to encourage comments to correct mistakes and oversights in postings (to be distinguished from ad hominem attacks aimed at destroying me and the platform because this platform doesn’t allow final say from those who promote Christianity, Jewish interests, Hitler/Nazism, race mixing, scientism, or bizarre conspiracy theories). Unfortunately, because those interests are not included in this platform, the site has become a no-mans land, even though it is an eminently reasonable platform, I am confident to argue, the most reasonable and best platform for the advocacy of European peoples.
Goodness knows our advocacy is necessary when the media can be this biased against Whites and in the promotion of black interests.
Apologies to the NYPD and the prosecutors. A social constructionist approach to getting at the truth does work but can be quite belated in its corrections if people don’t participate in getting at our truth but are rather motivated by the hope that I fail as I do not follow their A gods, Abraham, Adolf and sundry other Absurdity.
The city of New York released thousands of documents from the 1989 Central Park rape case last week, provoking more weeping and gnashing of teeth over Donald Trump’s full-page ads in four New York newspapers taken out soon after that attack with the headline:
“BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY.
“BRING BACK OUR POLICE!”
His ad never mentioned the Central Park rape, but talked about New York families—“White, Black, Hispanic and Asian”—unable to enjoy walks through the park at dusk. Of muggers and murderers, he said, “I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. ... They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.”
According to the media, the five convicted boys were INNOCENT — and Trump would have executed the poor lads! This is nonsense. They wouldn’t have been executed because the rape victim miraculously survived. Also, they weren’t innocent.
Let’s look at the facts of the case.
On April 19, 1989, investment banker Trisha Meili went for a run through Central Park around 9 p.m., whereupon she was attacked by a wolf pack looking for a “white girl,” dragged 100 yards into the woods, stripped, beaten with a pipe and a brick, raped and left for dead.
By the time the police found Meili, she’d lost three-quarters of her blood. Her case was initially assigned to the homicide unit of the D.A.‘s office because none of her doctors thought she would make it through the night.
Of the 37 youths brought in for questioning about the multiple violent attacks in the park that night, only 10 were charged with a crime and only five for the rape of the jogger: Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson and Korey Wise. All five confessed—four on videotape with adult relatives present and one with a parent present, but not on videotape.
Two unanimous, multicultural juries convicted them, despite aggressive defense lawyers putting on their best case.
But the media have a different method of judging guilt and innocence. They don’t look at irrelevant factors, such as evidence, but at relevant factors such as the race of the accused and the race of the victim.
Unfortunately for Meili, she was guilty of being white, while her attackers belonged to the Brahmin caste: “people of color.” So, after waiting an interminable 13 years, the media proclaimed that the five convicts had been “exonerated” by DNA evidence.
DNA evidence didn’t convict them, so it couldn’t “exonerate” them. This was a gang attack. It was always known that other rapists “got away,” as the prosecutor told the jury, and that none of the defendants’ DNA was found in the jogger’s cervix or on her sock—the only samples that were taken.
While it blows most people away to find out that none of the suspects’ DNA was found on Meili, this is a sleight of hand. The trick is that we’re looking at it through a modern lens. True, today, these kids’ DNA would have been found all over the crime scene. But in 1989, DNA was a primitive science. Cops wouldn’t have even bothered collecting samples for DNA tests back then.
The case was solved with other evidence—and there was a lot of it.
[...]
The “exoneration” comes down to Reyes’ unsubstantiated claim that he acted alone. Years of careful investigation, videotaped confessions, witness statements, assembling evidence, trial by jury and repeated appeals—all that is nothing compared to the word of an upstanding citizen like Reyes, a violent psychopath who sexually assaulted his own mother and raped and murdered a pregnant woman while her children heard the attack through the bedroom door.
That’s the sum total of the “exoneration”: the word of a psycho.
Note that Reyes faced absolutely no penalty for his confession—the statute of limitations had run out years earlier. Before he confessed, Reyes had been moved to Korey Wise’s cellblock. He requested a transfer on the grounds that he feared Wise’s gang. All he had to do was confess—with no penalty—and he got his prison transfer!
Not even this monster’s self-serving “confession” can explain away the five attackers’ other crimes that night—vicious beatings that left one parkgoer unconscious and another permanently injured. These attacks, the “Central Park Five” never disputed, and frequently admitted.
The SJW’s verdict: Award the criminals $41 million. Trump’s idea: Punish them.
And you still can’t figure out how he became president.
They didn’t have quite the excuse to go after Regina as they did Reginald, but if they did ...well, they just lack education, has nothing to do with distinctive black hyper assertiveness…
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 06 June 2019 08:04.
Ignore Lana’s idiotic use of the YKW supplied “enemy term”, i.e., “Leftists”, and replace it with the correct term, “Liberals” and it is otherwise a good critique of Lauren Southern’s ((())) “Borderless.”
Lana’s inclination to get suckered into a right wing position is probably a significant reason why Red Ice has been spared the recent Youtube purge so far.
(((Lauren Southern))) equipped with gas mask, helmet and protective eye goggles, ready for the “surprise attack” from anti-fa.
And as far as Lauren Southern (Simonsen) goes, Majorityrights has long seen her game as kosher.
“It becomes a referendum for or against Macron: if he loses this election, then he will have to leave.”
National populist leader Marine Le Pen along with her Rassemblement National (National Rally) has prevailed over France’s sitting president Emmanuel Macron in the European Parliament elections and wants him to resign.
Ms. Le Pen’s party had won 23,6 percent of the vote, edging out Macron’s La Republique En Marche (LREM) who garnered about 22,4 percent of the vote, according to French newspaper Le Figaro.
Voter turnout across the continent was estimated at 51%, the highest in 20 years, indicating that over 200 million citizens across the 28-nation bloc showed up.
During her victory speech, the National Rally leader said, “The French have placed the National Rally at the top of the European elections. I see the people’s victory, who with pride and dignity have retaken power this evening.
Le Pen, who lost out to Macron in the 2017 national elections, went on to call for the head of state to dissolve the French Parliament “as a minimum”, saying “it is up to the president of the Republic to draw conclusions, he who put his presidential credit on the line in this vote in making it a referendum on his policies and even his personality.”
Earlier in the month, during the run-up to the election, Le Pen had referred to the European Parliament elections as a referendum on the presidency of Macron, calling on him to step down from office in the case that his party did not win.
“So it becomes a referendum for or against Emmanuel Macron, this European election. I accept that, but in these conditions, he must do as General De Gaulle: if he loses this election, then he will have to leave,” she said at the beginning of this month. Ms. Le Pen"s sentiments were echoed by 23-year-old Jordan Bardella, the lead candidate for the National Rally.
“The president will not be able to govern against the interests of the French during the second half of his quinquennium, which is why we are asking him to dissolve the National Assembly,” Bardella declared.
“The French people have clearly punished the president tonight, and taught him a lesson in humility.