Majorityrights News > Category: Political Philosophy

Humphreys makes the case that Nero was actually a much more benign, benificant and popular ruler than portrayals through the Jewish popularizing perspective of Christianity would have people believe. Nero actually transformed Rome from a wooden to a marble city; refining Roman life in many ways, in fact, with the development of parks, recreation and culture; thereby displaying contemplation and concern for matters far better than any preoccupation with persecuting Christians. It was thus necessary for Jewish interests to fabricate through Christianity, the popular notion of Nero as evil.

Part 2, 9:14 -

Demonizing of Nero Begins:

The Jews, in rebellion from 66, identify the personification of evil - Beliel - with the Roman emperor. In coded “revelation” the Beast is Nero. His death stiffened Jewish resistance.

Messianic sectarians concoct an apocalypse (later called the Testament of Hezekiah) which equates Belial with the Antichrist, an “indwelling” spirit of evil.

The last years of Nero’s reign saw the Jews in rebellion.

In Rome, following Nero’s suicide, political strife divides the nation… 

The Flavians, humble soldiers, were desperate to legitimize their new regime (by daunting contrast to the popular ruler, Nero). Hence the completion by Vespasian of the temple of Claudius. For the Flavians, Nero had been a weak, effeminate ruler. They had little interest in his cultural conquest, but gave the biggest, bloodiest festival of all to the Roman people; the amphitheater, lavishly financed by the plunder of the Jewish temple.

Related at Majority Rights:

MR Interview of Kenneth Humphreys by James Bowery Concerning the Syncretic Origin of Christianity
http://www.majorityrights.com/audio/KenHumphreys.mp3

This History of “Political Correctness” remains the most incisive and accurate explanation of Political Correctness - also accurately described as “Cultural Marxism”.

Related at Majorityrights:

‘Give-em-Hell Trump’ re-normalizing social classification & discrimination - very good, but..

YaleUniversity
Published on Youtube, Nov 22, 2017

The rise and fall of the liberal international order - by John J. Mearsheimer

Published by CISAus on Youtube, Aug 7, 2019

Blacks as a biological weapon of the right

Threat, intimidation, shock and awe, extortion:

Just because public money in the form of Welfare, Foodstamps, Medcaid, Social Security, Government Programs, Scholarships and so on, is not considered “private”, i.e., “their per capita income”, does not mean that black woman have a disadvantaged economic basis, one which is in important ways more secure, not exactly at a disadvantage, in crucial life matters such as the capacity to have children - quite the opposite: they do not have to work and can just take their time and headspace to have children at everyone’s expense, who then register as more “blacks” come black women who have “five dollars a year net worth.”

Ridiculous.

There is also a factor of money that might funnel to them through crime - which might be spun by liberals into an expression of victimization. But if they get away with that additional income, it is not as if their only other recourse was welfare.

Blacks have an advantage when it comes to education through school or college of any kind, public or private.

After their educational advantage, educated black women make more money than White women. 

If they do not choose to go to college, or trade school, blacks have a tremendous advantage with government jobs, such as the US Post Office or Public Transit or universities - which offer excellent benefits and retirement plans - if they do care to work. Actually, they have advantage with private business and corporations as well! In a word, what the hell are you talking about when you expect me to feel sorry for these people?

And all many of us White people want to do with them is nothing. We are repulsed from joining these public situations with them knowing that it will lead to straight out lineal extinction, a harrowing nightmare for what White children do survive for a time or Mulatto grandchildren, ultimately.

There is also a factor now of above board wealth among blacks that is not being factored into these statistics parceled out discreetly as ‘black woman poverty’ (which frankly is not my concern anyway).

In addition, there are the intangibles - black solidarity, the taboo and danger of criticizing and discriminating against them - “racism!” - to go along with their warrior gene, high testosterone hyper assertiveness and lack of impulse control that makes them a great weapon of fecundity, disingenuous self righteousness - along with the ever present threat of violence and riot to extort the system - and when you look like many of them do and cannot rise to wealth through protracted intellectual effort, what do you have to lose? - now even seeking reparations for slavery on top of the trillions they’ve already received in a program of White r-p-a-c-m-nt (a word forbidden to be used by us “privileged people”), on behalf of those who would wallpaper over the decency and expense of those offering the coordination of White Left ethnonationalism.

Do you seriously expect me to care about these people who are so destructive to ordinary and working class Whites? These blacks, who Right Wingers brought to bear against us, to the destruction of millions of our loving brothers and sisters, would-be sons and daughters? Whites who are not even allowed to organize in group defense? Not to mention the Caribbean and other Native American Indians. 

Blacks know the ropes of the American system and work it much better than other groups, for example, some White peoples who are often more recently immigrated and not powerfully supported as a group by YKW language games. 

While right wingers and lucky liberals intermarry with the YKW and continue this pig game…

This is how marginalized White men are made into cows along with the rest of the working/labor surplus world, to pay to make these fat asses even fatter (some now hidden beneath a burka) and more fecund to the detriment of all…to supply their feral sons and their feral black fathers with veritable harems as they go on to impregnate naive Hispanic, Indio and White women..and yes, Asian women too, in order to mix away the would-be left ethnonationalist unions/coalition in favor of one ruler, Abrahams’ favorite sons and daughters.

Stop wallpapering Whites, depicting all White men as powerful, privileged elite. Stop characterizing White right wingers, elite traitors that they are, taking the payoff with “fellow Whites” YKW - the truly organized oppressors - as if they represent us - they do not.

Stop using black biopower, its ugly violent element with nothing to lose, against us to destroy our marginals- who would otherwise begin to help manifest the union bounds that could form coalitions to hold right wing perfidy, betrayal and exploitation to account.

Just like Muslims, many blacks are well suited to be biological weapons of the right wing by nature, and those who seek to bring them to bear against other solidarities/unions, in the name of pity and self righteousness are perpetrating atrocity. Those women who bring them to bear and exploit against other peoples, pretending that it is out of sensitivity and compassion ought rather go and live with them in the societies that stem from their nature.

There has been a ramped-up effort since 2008 to identify White activism with “the right” and to join forces, even to the point of amalgam with YKW against “the left”....but if Non-White left ethnonationalists join forces with the Jewish, anti-White program - that Whites are responsible for the world’s problems - all of them! - to the point of wallpapering over White left ethnonationalism, it will be at the loss of one of their greatest potential allies in staving off their becoming a part of an ongoing disaster of Brazilification, for all its human and other ecological disaster - while these people who you rightfully hate get away with it.

I don’t even like throwing a bone to the Jewish ass-kisser Trump, or candidates from either party (Democrats either, of course) of America’s utterly baked-in and controlled liberal system - wherein “conservatives” only conserve liberalism. However, even if Trump was forced to address this issue to push back against (((Social Media Bias))) in favor of the Democrats in the coming election, and even if the examples of censorship are not those with platforms that I agree with (for example, a pro-life platform excluded from Twitter), the issue and the fact of censorship and “popularity” being manipulated, brought out into open awareness and discussion from underneath the gaslighting by (((social media))) is helpful.

As ethnonationalists, you may not like the examples of people and issues censored.

On the other hand, just as raising the issue of censorship itself provides some daylight for our concerns, so too the intersectionality that a David Horowitz experiences in his example of social media censorship provides some grounds for us to seize upon. Yes, Horowitz has concerns for intersectionality against (((his interests))) in mind, ultimately (no small matter, he’s not “one of us and on our side”); nevertheless, he’s the one who spilled significant beans on the who, what, how of Cultural Marxism/Political Correctness that allowed William Lind to articulate the matter so well for purposes of our ethnonationalist critique and increased freedom from its voodoo.

Tulsi Gabbard sounds off on ‘clear bias’ during her debate

Trump hosts conservative social media personalities at White House

Fox News
President Trump’s White House summit aims to air our grievances over political bias on social media platforms. Invitees are mostly comprised of prominent, and sometimes controversial, online right-wing pundits. #FoxNewsLive #FoxNews

John Bolton spearheading P.N.A.C. and going to show that even (((1/8th))) can be toxic.

Journalist Explains John Bolton’s Push For ‘Aggressive Use’ Of American Power

NPR, 2 May 2019: New Yorker writer Dexter Filkins says President Trump’s current national security adviser is a hawk who sees America as “a colossus operating anywhere it wants.”

TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. President Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton is known as a tough-talking hawk. A new article about him in The New Yorker is titled “John Bolton On The Warpath.” My guest is the author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dexter Filkins, who’s a staff writer for the magazine. He’s joined us many times on the show, dating back to when he covered the war in Iraq.

Bolton is President Trump’s third national security adviser, after Generals Michael Flynn and H.R. McMaster. Trump was familiar with Bolton’s views because Bolton had made hundreds of appearances on Fox News as a guest, and then as a paid commentator. On Fox, he’d advocated for military strikes on Iranian training camps and for forced regime change in North Korea. Earlier in Bolton’s career, he served in the George W. Bush administration as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs and as U.N. ambassador. He advocated for the invasion of Iraq and told Filkins he still thinks the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was correct.

Dexter Filkins, welcome back to FRESH AIR. So as you point out in the piece, the Trump administration has no permanent secretary of defense, no secretary of homeland security, no ambassador to the U.N. What does it mean in terms of the power John Bolton has now in his role as national security adviser?

DEXTER FILKINS: Well, the national security adviser, just by virtue of the geography of that job - it’s in the West Wing. It’s right down the hall from the Oval Office. It’s an incredibly powerful position. You know, Bolton sees the president every morning. He sees him or he talks to him in the evening. It’s just, the proximity of that job to the presidency gives the occupant of that job just an enormous amount of power. So just on its face, you know, you’re in the pole position there. But I think in this administration because, you know, it’s a revolving door in the rest of the government pretty much all the time - Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, he’s gone. There hasn’t been - no replacement has been named so there’s an acting secretary of defense. There’s no ambassador to the United Nations. There’s no secretary for homeland security.

So it’s just kind of a big vacuum. I think it’s fair to say that makes his job even bigger and gives him even more influence than you would ordinarily have. So I think in that administration, when you’re talking about foreign policy, you’re basically talking about John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, and that’s it.

GROSS: And are they on the same page on most things, Pompeo and Bolton?

FILKINS: I think so. I had a funny conversation about Pompeo and Bolton together with an unnamed Western diplomat who knows them both. And they said, look, you know, Pompeo is really only interested in what Trump is interested in. So you can’t really sit down and talk about the world with him. Bolton, on the other hand, you can talk about anything. You can talk about aid programs in Africa, and he’s well-briefed. He knows about it. But Pompeo has a much more political outlook.

GROSS: So you’re saying Pompeo is there to amplify Trump’s views. Bolton has very strong views of his own.

FILKINS: Yes, he does.

GROSS: So the title of your piece is “John Bolton On The Warpath.” I know he’s a hawk. Does the piece imply that he’s going to lead us into war?

FILKINS: No, but I think it fairly raises a lot of questions. And I think the basis of the piece is this, which I was kind of surprised to find - this divergence of world views between Bolton, on the one hand, who’s been a hawk his whole life. He’s for aggressive use of American power. He’s advocated bombing North Korea. He’s advocated bombing Iran. And then on the other hand, to the extent that President Trump has a world view, it is he wants to stay home. It’s America first. He’s pretty close to being an isolationist. He doesn’t want to - you know, he doesn’t want to partake in this kind of entire international architecture that was set up after the Second World War, whether it’s the World Trade Organization, or NATO or EU. He doesn’t want to pay for any of that stuff, and he doesn’t want to get involved.

So Trump, I think it’s fair to say, doesn’t really want to launch new military operations. They do not see eye to eye on things. I tried to kind of, you know, figure out what it is they talk about when they get together (laughter) for that reason.

GROSS: If Trump and Bolton have such opposing world views when it comes to the possibility of military intervention or war, why would Trump choose him? Why did he choose him?

FILKINS: Well, I think there’s - that’s a really good question. I think there’s two reasons for that. One is that, you know, I think he’s, Bolton, is kind of emotionally appealing to Trump. You know, Bolton was a very highly paid analyst on Fox News. He was on there few times a week. One of the revelations is - for me was I got to look at Mr. Bolton’s financial disclosure, which you’re required to submit for a job like that. And yeah, there was lots of stuff in there. So I think he was being paid $600,000 a year - this is just part of his income, but - $600,000 a year to be on Fox. And so every night, he’s banging away, talking tough. And I think that appeals emotionally to Trump. He’s like, he’s a tough guy. Plus he just sees him all the time. ‘Cause they didn’t really know each other very well.

I think the other reason is there were - H.R. McMaster had been the national security adviser before John Bolton. And there was a kind of a pretty large group of Trump allies who had decided that McMaster had to go. They didn’t like him. They thought he wasn’t supportive enough of Israel and of, you know, the current leadership there. And so they pushed him out. I mean, I think it’s fair to say they lobbied very hard to get him out, and they worked pretty hard to get Bolton in. So I think it was a confluence of those two things.

GROSS: What did Bolton advocate for as a highly paid commentator on Fox News?

FILKINS: (Laughter). Well, he, as I mentioned, he - and I went through a lot of stuff that he said on the air. And, you know, I think he’s finding - I should say, before I answer that question - I think he’s finding, you know, it’s a little different when you’re in power, as opposed to being out of power. But on Fox, talking tough - strike North Korea, if necessary, before they acquire an ICBM capability. Strike Iran in various, you know, various ways and in various contexts. That’s, like, at a minimum. And support Israel in its kind of what I think is a covert or actually pretty hot war that’s going on with Iran and Syria.

So really aggressive use of American power. But I think even more than that, not just - you know, not just dropping bombs. I think that Bolton’s worldview is he’s extremely skeptical of international agreements, whether they’re treaties or, again, the whole kind of architecture that was built by the United States over the past 70 years. You know, whether it’s NATO, or the EU, or the U.N. or the World Trade Organization, all those things which, you know, that’s the world we live in. And he is - and these are, you know, treaties and commitments, and bilateral agreements, multilateral agreements. He’s deeply skeptical of all those things. And he says, essentially, in - he has said this on Fox News, but he’s been very articulate about it in his writing, which is, every time you sign a treaty or a multilateral agreement, you give up a little bit of your sovereignty. And so I think he sees - his view of America is as a kind of colossus operating unilaterally wherever it wants. And, you know, if you pick up friends along the way, great. But they’re not going to be your friends for long. ‘Cause there’s no such things as friends in the international system. There’s only interests. And only interests endure. And so don’t get sentimental about it. Just carry on. And I think that it’s a very unsentimental view of the world that he OK. But Trump fell in love with…

READ MORE...