[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.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here’s how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around, or under, 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
This is the case in:
United States—Muslim 0.6%
Australia—Muslim 1.5%
Canada—Muslim 1.9%
China—Muslim 1.8%
Italy—Muslim 1.5%
Norway—Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:
Denmark—Muslim 2%
Germany—Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom—Muslim 2.7%
Spain—Muslim 4%
Thailand—Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France—Muslim 8%
Philippines—5%
Sweden—Muslim 5%
Switzerland—Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands—Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago—Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:
Guyana—Muslim 10%
India—Muslim 13.4%
Israel—Muslim 16%
Kenya—Muslim 10%
Russia—Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia—Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia—Muslim 40%
Chad—Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon—Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania—Muslim 70%
Malaysia—Muslim 60.4%
Qatar—Muslim 77.5%
Sudan—Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation, violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
The Economist urges Europe to accept its merger with Africa gracefully
The Economist, owned by the Rothschilds, has always been at the forefront of globalism. Back in the early days of mass migration, it mocked those, such as Cyril Osborne, who warned that the population reserves of the Third World were infinite, and Europeans would seen be faced with minority status if the influx was allowed to continue.
Here we are only a few decades later and the Economist, in the same imperturbably smug tone that is its hallmark, now tells Europeans that their being merged with Africa is now inevitable and they should accept it gracefully.
Europe’s deluded politicians still say that we need to encourage development in Africa to stop them coming here. But as the Economist makes clear, prosperity acts as a driver of immigration, not the obverse.
Today’s waves of African migration are merely a prelude. Of the 2.2bn citizens added to the global population by 2050, 1.3bn will be Africans—about the size of China’s population today. And more of them will have the means to travel. Those Africans risking the trip north across the Mediterranean today are not the poorest, but those with a mobile phone to organise the trip and money to pay smugglers. Few of the Nigerians who attempt the crossing are from their country’s poor north, for example; almost all are from its wealthier south. As African countries gradually prosper, migration will surely increase, not decrease. Emmanuel Macron raised these points in a recent interview. The French president was recommending a new book, “The Rush to Europe”, published in French by Stephen Smith of Duke University, which models past international migrations like that of Mexicans into America to show that the number of Afro-Europeans (Europeans with African roots) could rise from 9m at present to between 150m and 200m by 2050, perhaps a quarter of Europe’s total population.
Rape is probably inevitable, women. Rather than resist it, you should do your best to try and enjoy it. Maybe your rapist will turn out to be a nice guy. You can have little brown sprogs with him and live happily ever after.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 06 October 2018 16:27.
See Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem’s full speech here.
During the Syrian Civil War, millions of Syrians fled to Europe and other places as refugees. Now it seems that Syria wants them back after a powerful speech by Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Moualem at the recent UN General Assembly.
Speaking on Saturday (29th September), Moualem, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, thanked the countries which have taken in the refugees, but said it was time for them to come back home, as the Syrian Civil War is now practically finished.
“The government continues to rehabilitate the areas destroyed by terrorists, to restore normalcy,” he told the meeting. “All conditions are now present for the voluntary return of Syrian refugees to the country, the country they had to leave because of terrorism and the unilateral economic measures that targeted their daily lives and their livelihoods.
True enough, thousands of Syrian refugees abroad have started their journey back home.
From this podium I would like to stress the following - the return of each and every Syrian refugee is a priority for the Syrian state. All doors are wide open for All Syrians abroad to return voluntarily and safely…
Thanks to the help of Russia, the Syrian government will spare no effort to facilitate the return of refugees and meet their basic needs. Therefore a special committee was recently established to coordinate the return of refugees to their places of origin in Syria, and to help them regain their lives once again.”
Moualem also criticised the uncooperative attitude of some of the Western countries to which the refugees fled, and accused them of trying to prevent the refugees returning to their homelands.
“We have called upon the international community and humanitarian organisations to facilitate these returns. However, some Western countries, in line with their dishonest behaviour since the start of the war in Syria, continue to prevent the return of refugees. They are spreading irrational fears among refugees. They are politicising what should be a purely humanitarian issue, using refugees as a bargaining ship to serve their political agenda and linking the return of refugees to the political process.”
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 01 October 2018 07:41.
W. Barnett Pearce
Sexists, racists, and other classes of classifiers: Form and function of “...Ist” accusations
by Julia T. Wood and W. Barnett Pearce
An “. . . ist” accusation indicts an individual as a racist, sexist, or other “. . . ist” whose thoughts and/or acts discriminate on the basis of class membership. The self‐reflexively paradoxical structure of “. . . ist” accusations precludes refutation, but response is possible. Pragmatic and moral implications of alternative responses to “. . . ist” accusations are evaluated.
In late 1989, I wrote to W. Barnett Pearce to discuss his work and how it might resolve problems that I was struggling with. Noting my struggles with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ - and having compassion! - he sent me this article, so on target and deft in the manner which it handled my concerns, that it demonstrated unequivocally that his was a discipline that I needed to be apprised of. Indeed, this article provided two of the most important clues for my WN advocacy. The first being that ‘race’ is (in an important regard) a matter of classification - at very least being treated as such by people who mattered, particularly by our foes, but also by our people, where they know what is good and necessary for them. Secondly, as the blurb above hints at, our antagonists can always shift its paradoxical structure to their anti-White agenda:
Viz., if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate based on race, sex, etc. I judge everyone on their individual merit”, then they will charge you with being disingenuous, willfully ignoring “the long history of discrimination, oppression and exploitation of these groups.”
But then, on the other hand, if you take the measure of saying, “ok, lets take that into account and use, say, affirmative action to help these groups into positions in which they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and a racist by definition.
- which I found ironic, that being the exact name (same year as well) of the girlfriend of mine who drove me to psychic melt-down.
Anyway, the (very helpful) gist of that article, which I’ve noted several times before, is that within the context of liberal feminism, even a well intentioned man can always be put into the wrong:
You can always be treated as either a wimp or a pig, no matter what you do as a man.
If you try to treat her with deference, gentleness, help and respect, then you can be looked upon as a wimp and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her strength, agency and autonomy.
On the other hand, if you treat her as one of the boys, respecting her toughness and autonomy, then you can be looked upon as a pig, a male chauvinist pig, not respecting the special quality of her gender, but rather a male chauvinist pig, projecting the hegemony of your patriarchical world view over all and everyone.
When nostalgic Brexiteers look back to the ‘good old days’, the summers were warmer, the food was tastier, and the dogs and people were friendlier. They have convinced themselves that it was a Golden Age before we joined the old Common Market in 1973. They have forgotten about the strikes and confrontations, the poor productivity, and the years of stagnation.
Some of them believe that the British Empire was destroyed by conspiracies but history tells a different story. When the Japanese won their war with Russia in 1905 they showed that the European powers were vulnerable, and when they took Singapore from Britain in 1942 they proved their point to the subject peoples of Asia and Africa. We fought colonial wars in Malaya, Kenya, Aden, and Cyprus but there was no stopping “The Wind of Change.” Within thirty years of WW2, all that was left of the Empire was a few outposts like Gibraltar and the Falklands.
Those of us born in the last days of the British Empire are proud of our achievements. We built roads, railways and bridges all over the world and bequeathing a civil service, a judiciary, and a parliamentary system to our colonial subjects. The British Empire was a force for civilisation and progress, but it was also the source of cheap food that damaged our agriculture, the producer of cheap cotton goods that destroyed our textiles industry, and the supplier of immigrants that undercut our wages and conditions. We discovered the hard way that commerce overrules sovereignty and that people follow goods across borders. In the days of Empire we recruited workers from the West Indies; as members of the EU we signed up to its rules and conditions, and if we are swallowed up by the United States we will import contaminated food and commit our troops to ‘perpetual war’.
Capitalism has been global since the days of the East India Company. We fought the Chinese to force them to buy our opium; we fought the Afrikaners for their gold and diamonds, and we fought the Turks to steal the Arabian oilfields. But the days of trade enforced by bayonets are over. We belong to NATO and our armed forces are under the command of General Curtiss Scaparroti, Supreme Allied Commander Europe. We are members of the United Nations and subject to the International Court of Human Rights. We belong to the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. If we leave the EU we will operate under the World Trade Organisation. And the majority of our immigrants come from outside the EU, mainly from Africa and Asia.
We pro-Europeans believe in beneficial access to markets, incoming investment, and peace in Northern Ireland. And, realising that the Empire has gone, we see our future in terms of European co-operation. We also know that wages are far too low and that immigration can only be controlled by international agreement.
These arguments have been thoroughly debated but the decision to leave the EU was largely emotional. Abstract ideas of ‘sovereignty’ were more important than economics. In fact, some on the Brexiters are happy to accept a lower standard of living for the illusion of sovereignty.
As for immigration, the Brexiteers don’t regard West Indians, Africans and Asians as foreigners, after all, they play cricket and most of them speak English. They are happy to admit our former colonial subjects but they are determined to stop the Poles.
Neither side has a monopoly on patriotism but some people are fond of shouting “traitor” at the opposition. That’s unfair because we all want the best for our country. People are not traitors because they have a different opinion, and shouting abuse at foreigners does not make one a patriot. We are entering uncharted waters and time alone will tell who is right and who is wrong.
The BBC
John Reith 1889-1971 photo credit BBC.
The British Broadcasting Corporation is a state-owned media empire that was founded by the brilliant Scottish engineer and radio pioneer John Reith in 1922. His original intention was for the service to be educational as well as entertaining. Left-wingers accuse it of being right-wing and right-wingers accuse it of being left- wing. The truth is that it supports the establishment, not necessarily the government of the day but the overriding liberal-capitalists consensus.
[MR editorial note: Nationalists being against corrupt establishment is indicative of what we are calling “Left Nationalism”]
The Corporation is funded by an annual ‘licence fee’ of £147.00. If you watch TV in the UK you must pay the licence fee, even if you are watching a foreign station. This unfair levy is the main source of the BBC’s massive income of nearly five billion pounds. It wastes this money on presenters like Chris Evans who earned £2.2 million last year, Gary Lineker who earned £1,7 million, and Graham Norton who got £850,000. The BBC also has legions of journalists, researchers, and photographers who fly around the world gathering news stories. And it spends a fortune on legal fees and settlements.
The British government is struggling to find money for the National Health Service, defence, education, and almost everything else. But we allow the bloated BBC to waste billions of pounds on broadcasters and bureaucrats. We should stop this madness by selling it off; the TV and radio stations, the buildings, the news service, the sports franchises, and everything else.
And we should not fall for the myths of impartiality and quality surrounding the Corporation. It’s forever congratulating itself on its high standards, but it’s as biased as any other state-owned propaganda outlet, and most of its TV and radio programs are made by independent production companies.
The licence fee should be abolished and the slimmed-down company should be paid for by adverting revenue, with any profits going to the state. Presenters should be paid an industrial wage and the service should be returned to John Reith’s founding principles. The current BBC is a money-gobbling monster that’s out of control. We should sack the lot of them and start again.
Post-Brexit Policies
When we leave the EU the political parties will no longer be able to blame everything on Europe, they will be forced to address our problems. As I write, they are holding their annual conferences and making their promises for the future.
Theresa May is clinging to her Chequers plan despite the fact that it has been rejected by the EU and most of her party. The Tories have abandoned austerity and are promising to build more social housing and increase public spending. They have also promised to reduce corporation tax so an increase in income tax is inevitable.
Jeremy Corbyn expects to win the next general election and he has promised to renationalise the railways, the Royal Mail, and the water companies. His chancellor, John MacDonald has revived the manifesto of the Italian Social Republic to give shares and seats on the board of companies employing more than 250 workers. When Benito Mussolini introduced this policy it was overtaken by events.
Vince Cable pledged that the Lib Dems would lead the fight against Brexit but our ‘first past the post’ electoral system is rigged against them. They have 12 seats at Westminster but under proportional representation they would have more than 50.
Ukip and the various parties of the far-right will lose most of their reasons for living when we quit Europe. But immigration will still be with us because most of them come from outside of the EU. The latest ONS figures show that in the last year 127,000 EU citizens came to the UK and 179,000 from the rest of the world. In fact, if we sign trade deals with China and India we will probably admit more of them.
All of the parties are promising to increase defence spending, but if our economy shrinks we will have even less money to spend. We may have to stop pretending to be a world power and deploy our armed forces for the defence of the UK, instead of getting involved in Afghanistan and the Middle East. That would mean more frigates and destroyers but we would not need two gigantic aircraft carriers and a fleet of nuclear submarines.
Education also needs sorting out. France and Germany provide free education from nursery to university and so should we. We must gear our educational system to provide the doctors, engineers and scientists that we need instead of relying on immigration.
For years we have been flying Africans to America and placing them in hundreds of US towns and cities, and President Trump’s State Department will continue that trend as its number one refugee admissions priority!
The UN asked the US to take in 50,000 Congolese over 5 years and we are doing just that!
Frankly, as I said just yesterday if Africa doesn’t soon slow its population growth and get the Islamic extremists under control, Africa is going to sink first Europe, and then us under the weight of millions of needy (mostly unskilled) people in the not too distant future.
Based on current trends, Africa as a whole is projected to double in [population] size by 2050. Between 2050 and 2100, according to the United Nations, it could almost double again.
(from 1 about 1.3 billion in 2018 to over 4 billion in 2100!)
Yikes! See the Africa ticking (time bomb) population clock, here.
Trump to prioritize Africa…..
cover fy19 report
Although the US State Department has announced a greatly lowered refugee cap (30,000) for the coming fiscal year which begins this coming Monday! the administration will place a priority on Africans according to the just released ‘Report to Congress’ that explains why the President is setting the level where he is.
This year it is a slimmed-down version of a report I have handy for FY16 (Obama’s last full year) which is 71 pages. The Trump report, at a mere 39 pages, does not go in to the great detail that Obama’s did.
I encourage serious students of the US Refugee Admissions Program to read it (LOL! I haven’t read it all yet, but I will!) because it is a very useful educational tool even if it is discouraging.
Here (below) is a screenshot of the Trump priorities. At least we can cheer about the dramatic slowdown in the Near East and Asia (where most of the Muslim countries, besides Africa, are found).
And it is an improvement on Obama’s last full year when he set the ceiling for Africa at 27,500 and came in at 31,624!
By contrast, from 1 Oct 2017 to 1 Sept 2018 (11 months of the fiscal year), Trump admitted 9,007 Africans. But, what on earth makes anyone in the Western World think we can save Africa by serving as their population pressure valve.
There is no way, even if we wanted to, to take enough refugees to keep up with their exploding population growth.
Let’s look at the DR Congolese
Anne Richard and then UNHCR Antonio Guterres who is now Secretary General of the United Nations. By the way, Trump is still without an Asst. Secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration
I reported here in 2013 that then Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, Anne Richard, told the UN (told UNHCR Guterres) that we would ‘welcome’ to America 50,000 UN Camp-dwelling Congolese over 5 years.
I just checked Wrapsnet and although we were bringing these people prior to FY14, since Richard’s announcement we have admitted 45,667 from that fiscal year up until today.
(In fact, from FY08 to the present day, we have admitted 56,106 from the DR Congo.)
And, by the way, I checked numbers for this month and in a little over 3 weeks we admitted 684 DR Congolese refugees, followed by Burma (290) in second place. In case you are wondering, most Congolese are not Muslims but there are a few in the flow to your towns and cities.
So by my calculation we have 4,333 DR Congolese to go to fulfill a promise we never needed to make!
But, do not hold your breath that it will end at 50,000 because our track record is that we just keep taking them long after the supposed cut off number has been reached—see Burmese, Bhutanese and Somalis for starters!
Endnote: I did a quick check and am not seeing anything about prioritizing persecuted white South Africans. Let me know if you see any mention.
Monday a big day for refugee contractors, expect more stories like these….
What is Monday? It is the beginning of the federal fiscal year. It is the first day of FY19. It is the day when the writing will be on the wall for many refugee resettlement offices around the country.
Dumb way to run an organization! Did no one in the refugee industry ever question a business model where some non-profits are 97% and up federally funded?
Why? Because in 1980 Jimmy Carter signed the Refugee Act of 1980 in to law and set up a house of cards that needs to fall now. Originally (supposedly!) designed as a public-private partnership, the federal government and ‘humanitarian’ non-profit groups were to share equally in the costs of admitting tens of thousands of refugees to the US each year.
But, over the years, because Congress has been so remiss in overseeing the program (the Rs want cheap labor!), those non-profit groups (aka federal contractors) have gotten fat and confident (like Aesop’s grasshopper) on ever larger amounts of federal funding and too lazy to raise sufficient amounts of private money to see them through if for any reason the number of paying clients/refugees declined.
(An aside: The inability to raise enough private money is also indicative of the fact that there isn’t enough interest by average Americans in financially supporting the program in the first place.)
So here we are with one story after another about what Monday will bring to dozens of resettlement contractors around the country.
From Austin, Texas we learn that a Catholic contractor—Caritas—is closing its refugee program.
EXCLUSIVE: As refugees dwindle, Caritas will end resettlement program
Since 1974, the organization has helped thousands of people fleeing war or persecution find a new life in Austin. But after 44 years, Caritas is ending its refugee resettlement program and as of Monday, it will no longer serve new refugees.
“It’s really a tragedy that this program has to go away,” said Jo Kathryn Quinn, executive director for Caritas.
[….]
For the past two years, Caritas has seen a sharp decline in the number of refugees arriving in Austin, and the development has made the program “financially unsustainable,” Quinn said. Between 2010 and 2016, Caritas resettled an average of 576 refugees each year. Since last October, Caritas has resettled 151 refugees, but the nonprofit has not received any new refugees since April.
“Having zero refugees arrive in two months was unheard of for us,” Quinn said. “It was the final alarm bell that told us that we couldn’t continue this way.”
[….]
In June, Caritas’ board of directors voted to close the program at the end of the fiscal year at the recommendation of the nonprofit’s executive leadership.
When fewer refugees arrive, less federal money comes in to support them as well. Refugees receive a one-time amount of $1,125 from federal funds for resettlement needs, including housing and food, said Adelita Winchester, Caritas’ director of integrated services. Caritas would supplement federal funds with about $1 million annually in philanthropic donations,Winchester said. [The reporter has missed an important piece of information. The refugee gets $1,125 and Caritas gets another $1,125 for themselves per refugee.—ed]
“We didn’t have any excess philanthropic dollars to shift to aid this program,” Quinn said.
Seoul, South Korea (CNN) North Korea said it would close a key missile test facility in the presence of “international experts” and potentially destroy its primary nuclear complex if the United States agrees to corresponding measures, South Korean President Moon Jae-in announced in a joint press conference with Kim Jong Un Wednesday.
The two leaders made the announcement on the second day of a three-day summit, their third this year, as part of efforts with the United States to contain the threat of war on the Korean Peninsula.
Speaking to the media Wednesday after a brief signing ceremony, Kim and Moon vowed to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula once and for all, something they first committed to at their April summit.
“The world is going to see how this divided nation is going to bring about a new future on its own,” Kim said to applause from those gathered.
Moon and Kim teased a potential historic fourth meeting between the two leaders, this time in the South Korean capital. The signed agreement stated that Kim would travel to Seoul “as soon as possible,” something no North Korean leader has ever done. Kim’s father, Kim Jong Il, agreed to visit Seoul, but never followed through.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the Paekhwawon State Guesthouse in Pyongyang, North Korea, in this still frame taken from video taken September 19.
Both countries’ defense chiefs also signed a 17-page accord in which the two countries vowed to “cease all hostile acts against each other.”
“The era of no war has started,” said Moon, the first South Korean president to visit Pyongyang since 2007. “Today the North and South decided to remove all threats that can cause war from the entire Korean peninsula.”
The two countries also pledged to:
- Submit a joint bid to host the 2032 Summer Olympics.
- Create rail and road links between North and South within the next year.
- Stop military drills aimed at each other along the Military Demarcation Line, which divides the two countries, by November 1.
- Remove 11 guard posts in the demilitarized zone by the end of the year.
- Normalize the Kaesong Industrial complex and Kumgang tourism project as soon as the conditions allow.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 16 September 2018 07:04.
Despite making the case clearly, White Nationalists continue to drag their feet in the war of position which should have them heading to Left Nationalist positions against Jewish elitism (which is lording increased hegemony of at least seven power niches upon 2008) and its destruction of our own rank and file organization, unionization; only the YKW are moving there swiftly: having observed the Hispanic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scoff-up the popular swell gathering behind leftist positioning and its logical corollary of a critical stance against Jewry and its Zionism, a fire is being lit under their ass to a) continue to try to mute the platform of Majorityrights and b) to get “Hispanic” read (((Hispanic))), i.e., a Marrano Sephardic into office - New York’s Senate - under the guise of a Social Democrat. But masquerading as a socialist is not where her crypsis ends. She’s been engaged in literal goyim identity theft.
” It was, in the end, an arrest about nothing.” ....says (((The New York Times))).
ALBANY — It was, in the end, an arrest about nothing.
“An Arrest? An Affair? Keith Hernandez? Just Another Day in the Julia Salazar Campaign”
In the latest twist in the Zelig-like story of Julia Salazar — born-again democratic socialist, would-be immigrant and actual New York State Senate candidate in Brooklyn — news broke on Thursday of her 2011 arrest involving a dispute with the ex-wife of the former New York Mets first baseman Keith Hernandez.
The charge? Attempted identity theft.
The legal skirmish between the two women also included an assertion that Ms. Salazar, 27, had an affair with Mr. Hernandez, an allegation that both denied but which nonetheless propelled the already peculiar political story into the realm of media mania, with the candidate being pursued down a street outside City Hall on Thursday by question-barking reporters and a television camera crew.
Scrutiny of Julia Salazar’s history revealed inconsistencies that threaten to undermine her candidacy.
The newest revelation, first reported by DailyMail.com, about Ms. Salazar dates to 2010 when Kai Hernandez, then Mr. Hernandez’s estranged wife, filed a police report alleging that Ms. Salazar, then a 19-year-old attending Columbia University, had attempted “to gain access to my bank accounts by fraudulently pretending to be me” in a phone call to Ms. Hernandez’s bank.
At the time, Ms. Hernandez also accused Ms. Salazar of a range of other crimes, including stealing more than $10,000 in cash, nearly $1,000 in wine and $1,175 in Pottery Barn gift cards. Ms. Salazar had been a neighbor of Ms. Hernandez in Tequesta, Fla., and house-sat for her on several occasions, according to court documents.
The couple divorced in February 2011. The next month, Ms. Salazar was arrested on charges of criminal use of personal information, according to police reports.
Those charges, however, were dismissed and Ms. Salazar filed a lawsuit in 2013 against Ms. Hernandez alleging that her “false accusations” and “character assassination” had led to the humiliation of “being handcuffed, being fingerprinted and having to pose for mug shots.” An amended complaint, filed by Ms. Salazar’s lawyer, contained the suggestion of the affair, used as an example of Ms. Hernandez’s dishonesty and malfeasance toward his client. The complaint also noted that Ms. Salazar had known Mr. Hernandez since childhood.
“Julia considered Keith to be a father figure,” the complaint read.
After a four-year legal battle, the case resolved in Ms. Salazar’s favor last March with a $20,000 payment to her, according to her lawyer, Adam Hecht.
Ms. Salazar, who is running in the Democratic primary for a State Senate seat representing Brooklyn, claimed she was defamed by Kai Hernandez, the ex-wife of Keith Hernandez, a retired professional baseball player.
“Kai Hernandez’s bizarre and fraudulent attempts to defame and victimize Julia were recognized as baseless by the authorities, who declined to file charges, and this matter was resolved,” Mr. Hecht said in a statement. “Keith, Kai and Julia agree that there was no affair. We have no further comment on this.”
The revelations only added to the snowballing, stranger-than-fiction tale of Ms. Salazar, whose insurgent campaign has been buffeted by a series of articles outlining discrepancies in her personal biography. Among the inconsistencies are her campaign’s assertion that she was an immigrant from Colombia, though she was actually born and raised in the United States, and the implication that she had graduated from Columbia. (She conceded in an interview with The New York Times that while she had completed her course work, she had not graduated and did not intend to.)
Other curiosities in her biography include her embrace of left-wing politics (she is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America) after serving as the president of a conservative, right-to-life group in college. Raised in a Roman Catholic home, Ms. Salazar also once served as the Columbia chapter president of Christians United for Israel, before renouncing that group and converting to Judaism.
The involvement of Mr. Hernandez, now a Mets television broadcaster on SNY, also brought on a barrage of jokes about “Seinfeld,” the famous show about nothing, which the ballplayer made several appearances on. A spokeswoman for the network had no additional comment beyond the denial of any affair.
Ms. Salazar is challenging State Sen. M. M. Dilan to represent a North Brooklyn district. On Thursday, a week before the Sept. 13 primary, Ms. Salazar happened to be at City Hall for a photo shoot when she was engaged by the gaggle of reporters.
Asked why she filed the lawsuit, Ms. Salazar was succinct.
“Because false accusations were made against me,” she said.
If (((she said it))), must be true, according to the (((New York Times))).
DSA’s Julia Salazar Is Headed to the New York State Senate
As the final vote tally came across the TV screens above, Julia Salazar stared off in a daze at the sea of supporters who had crammed into a Bushwick bar Thursday night.
“Oh, my God,” Salazar said aloud to no one in particular as her campaign staff swarmed her. The 27-year-old democratic socialist candidate for state Senate had done what socialists do not typically do in American politics: She’d won, and won big, knocking off longtime incumbent state Sen. Martin Dilan.
Her 18-point victory over the four-term establishment incumbent was another watershed moment for the Democratic Socialists of America, whose rise in American politics in the Donald Trump era went into hyperdrive in June with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s shock victory.
“This is a victory for workers,” said a still-startled Salazar in her short victory speech. “This is a victory for the oppressed, for the marginalized across the state of New York.”
Weeks of intense scrutiny over Salazar’s personal life led to a string of news stories that accused her of misleading voters on her immigration status, Jewish heritage, and socio-economic background while growing up in Florida. The nonstop, high-profile scandals seemed to have had virtually no effect at the ballot box. If anything, her supporters rallied harder for her.
Julia Salazar (born December 31, 1990) is an American politician and activist. As a first-time candidate, she defeated incumbent New York State Senator Martin Malave Dilan to become the Democratic nominee for the 18th district in 2018.[1] She attracted national media attention for her views and statements and for being a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Early life and education
Salazar was born in Miami in 1990.[2][3] Her mother is an American citizen by birth, while her father was a naturalized citizen from Colombia.[4][5] Salazar was raised in a conservative home and at 18, registered as a Republican.[6] According to her campaign spokesperson, she registered with the Independence Party of New York in March 2010, mistakenly believing that it was meant she was an unaffiliated voter.[6]
Salazar attended Columbia University, but told the New York Times she did not earn a degree.[7] While at Columbia, Salazar was pro-life and a member of pro-Israel Christian student groups, but later became involved in campus Jewish life and tenant organizing.[3][8][9][10]
In 2011, a police report was filed by Kai Hernandez, former wife of New York Mets player Keith Hernandez,[11] accusing Salazar of attempting to gain access to Hernandez’s accounts at UBS by impersonating her over the phone;[12] Salazar was arrested, but the charges were dismissed when the state prosecutor said the voice identification was insufficient to pursue the case.[13] Kai Hernandez said that Salazar had house-sat for the couple in the past.[13] A court dispute between Hernandez and Salazar followed, in which Salazar sought damages for defamation and won settlement in her favor.[11]
After college, she became a grassroots organizer and campaigned extensively for legislation around police accountability.[3]
2018 New York State Senate campaign
In April 2018, Salazar announced her candidacy for the 18th district of the New York State Senate.[14] She ran against incumbent Senator Martin Malave Dilan in the Democratic primary, which took place on September 13, 2018.[14][15]
Her campaign gained significant attention after the primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York’s 14th congressional district.[15] She has been endorsed by Our Revolution,[16] the Democratic Socialists of America,[17] Cynthia Nixon,[18] and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.[3][19] Citizens Union initially endorsed Salazar but later revoked their endorsement, citing discrepancies in information she provided about her academic credentials and whether or not she had graduated college.[20]
On September 13, 2018 Salazar defeated Dilan for the Democratic nomination.[21] She advances to the general election on November 6, 2018, where she does not face a Republican opponent.[22][23]
Dispute over personal history
Over the course of her campaign, journalists, including Armin Rosen, highlighted what they said were contradictions in statements about her personal life and family background.[5][24][25][26]
Salazar described herself as an “immigrant from Colombia” in interviews published in August, including one with the The Intercept,[15] and in campaign speeches and literature.[27][28] In interviews as early as May 5th, she explained that she was born in Miami at a time when her parents were living part of the time in Colombia,[9][19][24] and made clear that she was an American citizen.[25][26][29][30]
Salazar has described herself as Jewish, and said her father was a Colombian Sephardic Jew descended from the medieval community that was expelled from Spain, and that she started to explore Judaism in college.[5][4][9][26] Rosen said these claims could not be verified,[5][9][24] and her brother said their father “never mentioned” any Sephardic heritage to him;[31] Salazar’s mother said that, although the family was Catholic on both sides, Julia’s father’s family had a Sephardic background, saying “that’s where her interest stems from. This is not something that was invented for the purposes of this campaign.”[7][9] Salazar said Rosen was engaging in “race science” and said he had “threatened to publish her mother’s personal information if she didn’t cooperate.”[27] In college, she studied Jewish texts and observed kosher food rules,[24][29][32] and was involved with the Jewish organization Hillel.[9]
Salazar has also described her family and upbringing as “poor” and “working class”.[9] Her brother said their family was “upper-middle class” while Salazar’s mother said the family was “a little bit of both worlds”;[33][34] Salazar had a trust fund of approximately $685,000 in her name, left by her father.[35]
In kindred (((concern))), shobbos goy Robert Stark is lending his platform for (((Joshua Zeidner))) to promote kosher leftism as well, viz., “socialist nationalism”, to try to head off our war of position:
W. Barnett Pearce
cover fy19 report
South Korean Presdient Moon Jae-in and Norht Korean leader Kim Jong Un after signing the agreement
