[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 12 September 2019 16:15.
Barbara Spectre Is Back, in an Israeli summit of Jewish luminaries, including Rothschild, to unite worldwide Jewry and bring gentiles under yoke of Noahide law.
...in summit with Jewish luminaries, held in Israel to unite worldwide Jewry in a “foundationalization’ of their common destiny.
...also discussed will be the obligations for the rest of mankind - the renewing of Noah’s covenant, The Noahide obligations incumbent upon all mankind.
...an international court based on biblical principles.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 12 September 2019 06:00.
PewDiePie, with one of the largest YouTube audiences, gave $50,000 to the ADL, Youtube’s largest censor.
Mark Collett makes the case well in the recent [episode 19] Patriotic Weekly Podcast (58:04):
‘Dodo The Greatest Viking’ gave $10 Superchat: “Hey, what are your opinions on PewDiePie getting blackmailed by the ADL? ..stories just get more and more weird.”
Collett: “What do I think of PewDiePie giving fifty thousand dollars to the ADL? Now there are lots of people who are going to be very angry with what I say here, because no one wants to counter-signal the ‘great’ PewDiePie, because he was seen as the great White hope, the guy who was going to white-pill all these kids. The guy with a hundred million YouTube subs who could save us, could say what he wants because he was too big to fail; and he was ‘never going to cuck.’
But he did cuck.
He gave $50,000 to the primary source of censorship on the internet.
He gave $50,000 to the people taking away free speech for all the smaller YouTubers that can’t defend themselves - all the smaller YouTubers who haven’t got millions in the bank; or model wives, or giant, palatial homes. He gave money to the people trying to ruin them. So, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t care how big he is. I don’t care how important he is, I don’t care how many subs he has.. anyone who donates to the ADL is a rat. He is a rat and he has sold-out. He has spat on the smaller YouTubers that he used to proclaim that he wanted to protect. He has basically… they always say, ‘when you are at the top of the ladder, be kind to those beneath you. Don’t send rubbish back down the ladder on all those who are beneath you’, and he has done.
He just funded the group that want to take down people like E. Michael Jones, Nick Fuentes, Adam Green, myself, Jason, Patrick, Millennial Woes..
...and personally, I find it despicable. And I find it despicable as I said, for two reasons.
Firstly, anyone that funds them is our enemy.
Secondly, of all people on YouTube, of all of the people on YouTube, he did not have to give those people funding. He didn’t need to. He’s a multimillionaire. He has more money than anyone on this show, in this chat, will ever see in a life-time. He probably makes more money a year, than we’ll all see in a life-time. Yet he still cucked. Which just goes to show the size of his balls. How pathetic. And I’m certainly not going to sit here and be all nice because its PewDiePie. and if I saw him in real life, I’d say exactly the same thing to his face but probably in a much more amusing manner.
‘DL’, who gave $5 in the ‘superchat’ said (1:26:10): “you guys need to stop thinking in this low I.Q. manner; you have to remember that 50k is nothing compared to having a hundred million in audience; and that having access to that audience is worth far more than 50k.
Collett: “Well number one, I’m just going to answer this because that’s nonsense. Number one, when you have a hundred million people, subscribing to you, YouTube aren’t kicking you off; and if you did go to another platform, it wouldn’t affect your income at all, because you would run your own platform just as Ninja did. Ninja left Twitch, he was the biggest streamer on Twitch. He went to Mixer and all of a sudden, Mixer was his income. It doesn’t make any difference, the guy also has so much money in the bank, it doesn’t really make any difference. If he got kicked-off tomorrow and never earned another penny, he’d have more money than any of us put together ever. It makes no difference.
He did this because he’s a coward.
When you’re that big, you don’t need to cuck. I find it absurd. I’m very forgiving. I’m very kind to people. I help people out. He’s done nothing except for help the enemy; and tell everybody that the ADL is boss. Absolutely pointless and ridiculous.
Blackstone Group CEO Steve Schwarzman nterviewed on Fox Business Network, 27 Apr 2018. Photo: Richard Drew/AP
TWO BRAZILIAN FIRMS owned by a top donor to President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are significantly responsible for the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest, carnage that has developed into raging fires that have captivated global attention.
The companies have wrested control of land, deforested it, and helped build a controversial highway to their new terminal in the one-time jungle, all to facilitate the cultivation and export of grain and soybeans. The shipping terminal at Miritituba, deep in the Amazon in the Brazilian state of Pará, allows growers to load soybeans on barges, which will then sail to a larger port before the cargo is shipped around the world.
The Amazon terminal is run by Hidrovias do Brasil, a company that is owned in large part by Blackstone, a major U.S. investment firm. Another Blackstone company, Pátria Investimentos, owns more than 50 percent of Hidrovias, while Blackstone itself directly owns an additional roughly 10 percent stake. Blackstone co-founder and CEO Stephen Schwarzman is a close ally of Trump and has donated millions of dollars to McConnell in recent years.
“Blackstone is committed to responsible environmental stewardship,” the company said in a statement. “This focus and dedication is embedded in every investment decision we make and guides how we conduct ourselves as operators. In this instance, while we do not have operating control, we know the company has made a significant reduction in overall carbon emissions through lower congestion and allowed the more efficient flow of agricultural goods by Brazilian farmers.”
Map: Soohee Cho/The Intercept
The port and the highway have been deeply controversial in Brazil, and were subjects of a 2016 investigation by The Intercept Brasil. Hidrovias announced in early 2016 that it would soon begin exporting soybeans trucked from the state of Mato Grosso along the B.R.-163 highway. The road was largely unpaved at the time, but the company said it planned to continue improving and developing it. In the spring of 2019, the government of Jair Bolsonaro, elected in fall 2018, announced that Hidrovias would partner in the privatization and development of hundreds of miles of the B.R.-163. Developing the roadway itself causes deforestation, but, more importantly, it helps make possible the broader transformation of the Amazon from jungle to farmland.
The roadway, B.R. 163, has had a marked effect on deforestation. After the devastation that began under the military dictatorship and accelerated through the 1970s and ’80s, the rate of deforestation slowed, as a coalition of Indigenous communities and other advocates of sustaining the forest fought back against the encroachment. The progress began turning back in 2014, as political tides shifted right and global commodity prices climbed. Deforestation began to truly spike again after the soft coup that ousted President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers’ Party in 2016. The right-wing government that seized power named soy mogul Blairo Maggi, a former governor of Mato Grosso, as minister of agriculture.
Yet even as deforestation had been slowing prior to the coup, the area around the highway was being destroyed. “Every year between 2004 and 2013 — except 2005 — while deforestation in Amazonia as a whole fell, it increased in the region around the B.R.-163,” the Financial Times reported in September 2017. That sparked pushback from Indigenous defenders of the Amazon. In March, Hidrovias admitted that its business had been slowed by increasing blockades on B.R. 163, as people put their bodies in front of the destruction. Still, the company is pushing forward. Hidrovios recently said that, thanks to heavy investment, it planned to double its grain shipping capacity to 13 million tons.
amazon-destruction-map-1-01-1566850165Map: Soohee Cho/The Intercept
The Amazon, where a record number of fires have been raging, is the world’s largest rainforest. It absorbs a significant amount of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to the climate crisis. The Amazon is so dense in vegetation that it produces something like a fifth of the world’s oxygen supply. The moisture that evaporates from the Amazon is important form farmlands not just in South America, but also in the U.S. Midwest, where it falls to the earth as rain. Protection of the Amazon, 60 percent of which is in Brazil, is crucial to the continued existence of civilization as we know it.
“I just want to give you a sense for what liberalism is. The United States is a thoroughly liberal country. It is a liberal democracy. Both Republicans, who we sometimes refer to as conservatives, are liberals and Democrats are liberals. I’m using the term liberal in the John Lockean sense of the term.
The Unites States was born as a liberal democracy. The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, these are thoroughly liberal documents.”
We are a liberal people, okay? But what exactly does that mean? It’s very important that you understand it, because you have to understand what liberalism is to understand liberal hegemony and what went wrong. Then, it’s very important to understand what nationalism is.
John’s argument is very simple here.
Nationalism is the most powerful ideology on the planet.
And in a contest between liberalism and nationalism, nationalism wins every time.
And what I want to do is explain to you what liberalism is, what nationalism is, and why nationalism defeats liberalism. Then what I want to do is talk about what liberal hegemony is. What does it mean to say that The Unites States is interested in remaking the world in its own image? So, I’ll describe that. Then I want to talk about why we pursued liberal hegemony.
...of course I tipped you off by telling you that The United States is a thoroughly liberal country, but there’s more to the story.
Then I want to tell you what our track record is. I want to describe our failures ...in the Middle-East, with regard to NATO expansion, and Russia, and with regard to engagement in China. Lets talk about the evidence that we goofed.
Then I want to talk about why liberal hegemony fails, and this, again, is basically as story about nationalism and realism trumping liberalism. And then I want to make the case for restraint, what I think is a wise foreign policy, okay?
Let me start with what is liberalism…
There are two bedrock assumptions that underpin liberalism:
One is, that it is individualistic at its core.
And number two is that there are real limits to what we can do with our critical faculties.
...to reach agreements about first principles or questions about the good life.
And what exactly am I saying?
You have to decide, when you think about politics, whether you think human beings are first and foremost individuals who form social contracts or if you think that human beings are fundamentally social animals, who carve-out room for their individualism.
Right? This is very very important to think about alright?
Liberalism is all about individualism. Liberal theorists are known as social contract theorists because they believe that individuals come together and form social contracts, so the focus is on the individual.
The assumption underpinning liberalism is not that human beings are social animals from the get-go.
That’s the first point.
The second point is that liberalism assumes that we cannot use our critical faculties - we cannot use reason to come up with truth about first principles (think about issues like abortion, affirmative action - you cannot get universal agreement on those issues, right?). And I’ll talk about this more as we go along.
But the roots of liberalism are traced-back, in my opinion, to the liberal wars of Britain between Catholics and Protestants. And the fact is that you cannot use your critical faculties to determine whether Catholicism is a superior religion to Protestantism or vice a versa, or whether atheism is superior to both of them ..or Judaism or Islam is superior to Catholicism and Protestantism, Who knows? Right? You just can’t reach agreement. You just can’t reach agreement. There are real limits to what we can do with our critical faculties, okay?
So these are the two bedrock assumptions: One, you focus on the individual, and number two, you accept the fact that you can’t reach universal agreement.
Now, central question - how should politics be arranged to deal with this potential for violence?
And you say to yourself, what does he mean, potential for violence?
The fact is that Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in huge numbers, not only in Britain, but all over Europe. People today, Shias and Sunnis, kill each other, because they can’t agree on whether Shi ism or Sunnism is the correct interpretation of Islam ..or communists versus liberals, people can’t agree on first principles. And when they can’t agree on first principles, if they feel really strongly about them, there is potential for violence.
So, when you have all these individuals running around, who, don’t agree, they may agree in some cases but don’t universally agree, there’s tremendous potential for violence.
So, liberalism is basically an ideology that’s based on conflict, and the question is, how do you solve that conflict?
There’s a three part solution:
And this should be dear to all of your hearts.
The first is, you focus on individual rights. Remember, the importance of the individual. You know The Declaration of Independence, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” - those are natural rights, those are inalienable rights.
This means that every person on the planet has a particular set of rights, sometimes defined as freedoms. This is to say, you, if you want to be a Protestant, have the right to practice that religion, and if I want to be a Catholic, I have the freedom, I have the right to be a Catholic.
The name of the game is to recognize that everybody has these freedoms to choose. This makes perfect sense when you think about Catholics killing Protestants, right? Or Jews killing Muslims or whatever group you want, atheists killing believers, communists killing whatever, right?
The point is, you want to focus on the individual and let the individual choose for him or herself what kind of life they want to lead. You want to let them lead, as much as possible, their version of the good life. And, very important, every person on the planet has that right, and let me get ahead of myself here, just put this seed in your brain.
If you focus on individualism and inalienable rights, you go almost automatically from an individualistic ideology to a universalistic ideology, right? Because again, you’re focusing on the individual, you’re saying every individual has a set of rights, every individual on the planet. And that individualistic ideology becomes a universalistic ideology. But we’re talking about the individual here.
The second is, you purvey the norm of tolerance. We talk about tolerance all the time. Universities are really big on tolerance. We’re supposed to tolerate opinions that we don’t like. You bring in speakers, or you allow speakers to come in who say things that you find reprehensible, right? Tolerance really matters.
But the fact is that tolerance only takes you so far. because you’re dealing with people who sometimes are so committed to their beliefs. Somebody who believes that abortion is murder is willing to murder a doctor who practices abortion, alright?
So, you need a state, that’s the third element of the equation.
You need a state that’s effectively a night watchman. That makes sure that those people over there who want to live as Protestants don’t attack those people who want to live as Catholics and vice versa.
This is the liberal solution.
This is what America is all about.
Individualism - we talk about it all the time. We talk about rights, everybody has rights. My kids, over the years, have always reminded me when I tell them that they have to do X, Y and Z that they have rights and I cannot interfere with their rights, right? It’s the way we’re educated from the get go and of course, we’re a remarkably tolerant people as societies go. Not completely, but that’s, of course, why we have a state, right?
You’ve got to have a police force, you’ve got to have a system of courts, right?
So, that’s what liberalism is all about, right? Liberalism focuses on the individual, purveys the norm of tolerance and accepts the fact that you need a nightwatchman state.
Now, let’s talk about nationalism. Different animal…
Nationalism is based on the assumption that human beings are social animals.
We are born and heavily socialized into tribes.
We are not born in the state of nature.
We are not individuals, born and left alone in the woods.
We are born into groups. We are very tribal.
So, you see in terms of starting assumptions, or bedrock assumptions, what underpins nationalism, what underpins liberalism, very very different.
And individualism takes a back seat to group loyalty, right?
Somebody around the world kills an American, ISIS kills an American, it’s fundamentally different than killing a Saudi, or killing a Brit, because you’re killing one of us. This is the tribe, right? You’re an American. Americans look out for other Americans.
We are social animals from the get-go.
And aside from the family, the most important group, remember I said that you are born into and heavily socialized into particular groups ...tutting aside the family, the most important group in today’s world, is the nation (I’ll say more about that in a second).
What’s nationalism?
Here’s my simple definition:
It’s a set of political beliefs which holds that a nation, a nation, a body of individuals with characteristics that purportedly distinguish them from other groups, should have their own state. Think of the word nation-state.
Nation-state. Nation-state embodies what nationalism is all about. It says the world is divided up into all these tribes called nations and each each one of them wants its own state.
If you think about the world today, just look at a map of the world today, it is completely covered with nation-states. Nothing but nation-states.
If you went back to 1450 and looked at a map of Europe, there isn’t even a single state on that map. Over time, the growth of the state, and then the growth of the nation-state, you move to a world that is filled with nothing but nation-states. Look at the Palestinians and Israelis. The Jews who believe in Zionism, what is Zionism all about? It’s all about having your own Jewish state. Theodore Herzel, who is the father of Zionism, his most famous book is called, The Jewish State, Jewish nation-state.
What do the Palestinians want? Two state solution? Palestinians want their own state. Palestinians as a nation, want their own state.
The planet is filled with nations, many of which have their own state, almost all of which want their own state, nation-state, right?
That’s what nationalism is all about.
Take it a step further. Nations place a enormous importance on sovereignty, or self-determination, which is why they want their own state.
The Palestinians don’t want the Israelis deciding what their politics should look like. Palestinians want their own state. Jews want their own state.
Germans want their own state.
Americans want their own state.
..because they believe in sovereignty.
[...]
Liberal hegemony is based on intolerance. It says that everybody has to be liberal…
[...]
Mearsheimer argues against trying to impose liberal democracy, as it is necessarily a failed foreign policy against staunch nationalism, but he defends “liberal democracy” as a good way of life for The US.
However, he does not observe that The U.S. has failed democratic principle in important ways - notably in the open border/ opening of group boundaries policies in exploit of the “civic nationalist” concept that his YKW people have perpetrated through power niches in cahoots with liberals/right wingers to overturn democratic will (for closed borders) ..open borders and boundaries, weakening The United States nationhood and putting The U.S. effectively, on a trajectory of non-nationhood.
Note Mearsheimer’s use of the pejorative word “purportedly” when discussing nationalist claims to distinguish their people in ways (e.g., important biological differences) requiring a nation-state to protect their differences; i.e., that they are only “purportedly” different from other people in significant ways which require national boundaries/borders to protect them.
Nevertheless, in places, Mearsheimer makes the point, quite eloquently, that people are social, very profoundly social, from the start; thus making nationalism as it protects their sociality something they care about more deeply than liberal democracy. They will defend more ardently the security, social order and stability that provides for general fairness and just recourse against the secondary priorities, bullying ‘prerogatives’ of individual liberal choice over the security of group interests. Noting our deep social nature (including Europeans) from the start is correct, and is the point of correction that Whites need to understand and prioritize as opposed to right wing reaction (itself a species of liberalism) reaction to Jewish didacticism.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 27 August 2019 15:49.
Euractiv File photo. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro attends the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) Leaders’ meeting on the sidelines of G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, 28 June 2019. [Kremlin pool/EPA/EFE]
G7 agrees on €18 million plan for forest fires but Brazil refuses aid
On Monday (26 August), the second day of the G7 meeting in Biarritz, France, climate protection was on the agenda. Even though states agreed on a plan to tackle forest fires in the Amazon rainforest, Brazil rejected foreign aid. EURACTIV Germany reports
During the G7 summit, heads of state and government agreed on an emergency programme with almost €18 million to tackle the forest fires in the Amazon region. French President Emmanuel Macron had put the topic on the meeting’s agenda at short notice.
However, only a few hours later, Brazil’s cabinet chief Onyx Lorenzoni rejected the programme. He told a news portal that Brazil was not prepared to take the money and urged Europe to reforest ‘its own backyard’. The Brazilian press office of the presidency confirmed the rejection to AFP.
The Amazon rainforest, which is about twice the area of France (1.2 million km2), has been seeing many forest fires. For Macron, this is “a drama that concerns all of humanity”. That is why states want to provide Brazil with immediate financial and technical help.
The UK has been the largest donor, as it has proposed to deploy €11 million for the emergency fund. The UK also pledged to double its contribution to the international climate fund. Since 2014, the fund has provided $100 billion each year for regions afffected by climate change. The UK will therefore contribute almost €1.6 billion over the next four years.
Green Climate Fund
@GCF_News
The UK announces a doubling of their contribution to the #GreenClimateFund! Cheers for your leadership in turning #ClimateAmbition into #ClimateAction. #G7 #G7Biarritz @DFID_UK https://g.cf/2Nz89vB
10:29 - 26 Aug 2019
Macron also stated that a comprehensive reforestation programme for the Amazon region should be agreed at the climate summit in New York in September. Nine countries affected by the forest fires – Brazil, French Guyana, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Suriname, Bolivia, Ecuador and Guyana – should benefit from the programme.
In these areas, forest fires have increased dramatically in recent weeks. Many of the fires are not natural as they result from fire clearances that create free space for animal breeding, for example.
According to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, 60% more rainforest was subject to slash-and-burn practices in June compared to the same month last year.
G7 weekend sum-up: Trump deepens divisions by pushing for Russia’s readmission
The readmission of Russia in the Group of Seven most industrialised countries became a bone of contention between Donald Trump and his partners during a summit held in Biarritz (France), as the Europeans and Canada insisted on maintaining the group as a “club of liberal democracies”.
Forest fires for financial interests
Brazil rejecting aid is not that surprising. The country’s right-wing populist president Jair Bolsonaro said such foreign aid had a “colonialist mentality” behind it.
It was not until France and Ireland threatened to block the long-planned trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur states that Brazil started to act. The president deployed 43,000 army troops and two military aircraft to deal with the forest fires over the weekend. Observers accuse Bolsonaro of at least tolerating the fires in his own country and of expecting economic benefits from the clearance.
France and Ireland threaten to vote against EU-Mercosur deal
Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar has threatened to vote against a trade deal between the EU and South American trade bloc Mercosur unless Brazil, where wildfires continue to devastate the Amazon rainforest, takes its environmental obligations more seriously.
The trade agreement between the EU and the Mercosur states has thus become a driver of forest fires, criticised Martin Häusling, a spokesman for agricultural policy for the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament.
“Brazil is creating space for grazing land and soy plantations – because Europe is to be supplied with the meat of 600,000 cattle and countless chickens. And that needs space,” Häusling said.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was satisfied with the talks on climate protection. Yesterday morning, Merkel held talks with UN Secretary-General António Guterres. It had been agreed that in the run-up to the COP25, the “commitment of as many countries as possible to climate neutrality by 2050 was of utmost importance”.
Trump’s chair remained empty
Further details on the G7 climate session are not yet known.
In addition to fires in the Amazon rainforest, the states at the G7 summit had also debated the protection of the oceans. In July, the EU and Canada launched a joint ocean programme.
Why the ocean should be on the G7 agenda
Surfrider Europe, a French organisation fighting for clean oceans, is organising an event ahead of the G7 summit in France. The aim is to call for incorporating ocean protection into international negotiations, particularly those concerning climate change. EURACTIV’s partner la Tribune reports.
US President Donald Trump did not take part in the working session on environment issues.
When journalists asked him whether he had been present after the working session, he replied that “the meeting will take place soon” and did not respond to the objection that it had already taken place.
According to media reports, US government representatives had snubbed Macron’s agenda for including “niche issues” such as biodiversity rather than economic issues.
According to Macron, there should be a final summit statement, albeit a minimalist one. At the previous summit, Trump withdrew his support from the joint statement At the last G7 summit, Trump decided not to sign the final summit statement.
TOP FINANCIER OF TRUMP AND MCCONNELL IS A DRIVING FORCE BEHIND AMAZON DEFORESTATION
Blackstone Group CEO Steve Schwarzman nterviewed on Fox Business Network, 27 Apr 2018. Photo: Richard Drew/AP
Map: Soohee Cho/The Intercept
Euractiv File photo. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro attends the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) Leaders’ meeting on the sidelines of G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, 28 June 2019. [Kremlin pool/EPA/EFE]