[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.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 25 October 2016 07:32.
DAILYKENN.com— “Elated Muslim lunatic celebrates winning suicide bomber drawing”, 21 Oct 2016:
You would have thought he just won the lottery. Video reveals a Muslim loon ecstatic over winning the role of suicide bomber.
The Muslim will get the opportunity to blow himself up and take the lives of others when he does.
White globalists do much the same. They are ecstatic about the prospects of destroying themselves while harming others through the destruction of Western culture.
Both are the victims of self-destructive thought reform.
Read more here: Sun, “JIHAD’S YOUR LOT: Warped ISIS fanatics celebrate after ‘drawing straws’ to win the chance to launch the next suicide bombing”, 21 Oct 2016:
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 22:21.
Chinese President Xi Jinping called Rodrigo Duterte’s visit a “milestone” in ties, as he pulled out all the stops to welcome the Philippines’ leader.
Huffington Post, “Philippine President Duterte Announces ‘Separation’ From The U.S.”, 20 Oxt 2016:
BEIJING (Reuters) - Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced his “separation” from the United States on Thursday, declaring that it had “lost” and he had realigned with China as the two agreed to resolve their South China Sea dispute through talks.
Duterte made his comments in China, where he is visiting with at least 200 business people to pave the way for what he calls a new commercial alliance as relations with longtime ally the United States deteriorate.
His trade secretary, Ramon Lopez, said $13.5 billion in deals would be signed.
Duterte’s efforts to engage China, months after a tribunal ruling in the Hague over South China Sea disputes in favor of the Philippines, marks a reversal in foreign policy since the 71-year-old former mayor took office on June 30.
“America has lost now,” Duterte told Chinese and Philippine business people at a forum in the Great Hall of the People, attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli.
“I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to (President Vladimir) Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world ― China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way,” he added.
“With that, in this venue, your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the UnitedStates,” Duterte said to applause. “I have separated from them. So I will be dependent on you for all time. But do not worry. We will also help as you help us.”
China has pulled out all the stops to welcome Duterte, including a marching band complete with batton-twirling band master at his official welcoming ceremony outside the Great Hall of the People, which most leaders do not get
Xi told Duterte their countries are now “brothers,” who can “appropriately handle disputes,” in an apparent nod to previous standoffs over the South China Sea.
RED CARPET WELCOME
President Xi Jinping, meeting Duterte earlier in the day, called the visit a “milestone” in ties.
Xi told Duterte that China and the Philippines were brothers and they could “appropriately handle disputes,” though he did not mention the South China Sea in remarks made in front of reporters.
“I hope we can follow the wishes of the people and use this visit as an opportunity to push China-Philippines relations back on a friendly footing and fully improve things,” Xi said.
Following their meeting, during which Duterte said relations with China had entered a new “springtime”, Chinese vice foreign minister Liu Zhenmin said the South China Sea issue was not the sum total of relations.
“The two sides agreed that they will do what they agreed five years ago, that is to pursue bilateral dialogue and consultation in seeking a proper settlement of the South China Sea issue,” Liu said.
China claims most of the energy-rich South China Sea through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. Neighbours Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims.
In 2012, China seized the disputed Scarborough Shoal and denied Philippine fishermen access to its fishing grounds.
Liu said the shoal was not mentioned and he did not answer a question about whether Philippinefishermen would be allowed there. He said both countries had agreed on coastguard and fisheries cooperation, but did not give details.
Duterte’s declaration of a separation with the U.S. comes after he called President Barack Obama a “son of a bitch” and told him to “go to hell” while alluding to severing ties with the old colonial power.
SEA ROW TAKES ‘BACK SEAT’
Duterte’s tone toward Beijing is in contrast to the language he has used against the United States, after being infuriated by U.S. criticism of his bloody war on drugs.
He has called U.S. President Barack Obama a “son of a bitch” and told him to “go to hell” while alluding to severing ties with the old colonial power.
On Wednesday, to the cheers of hundreds of Filipinos in Beijing, Duterte said Philippine foreign policy was veering toward China.
“I will not go to America anymore. We will just be insulted there,” Duterte said. “So time to say goodbye my friend.”
The same day, about 1,000 anti-U.S. protesters gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Manila calling for the removal of U.S. troops from the southern island of Mindanao.
Duterte on Wednesday said the South China Sea arbitration case would “take the back seat” during talks, and that he would wait for the Chinese to bring up the issue rather than doing so himself.
Xi said issues that could not be immediately be resolved should be set aside, according to the Chinese foreign ministry.
China has welcomed the Philippines approaches, even as Duterte has vowed not to surrender any sovereignty to Beijing, which views the South China Sea Hague ruling as null and void.
China has also expressed support for his drug war, which has raised concern in Western capitals about extrajudicial killing.
Duterte’s overtures to China have been accompanied by signs of improving business ties with the world’s second largest economy.
China’s Liu said Beijing will restore Philippine agricultural exports to China and provide financing for Philippine infrastructure.
Interesting that The Huffington Post made this the caption beneath the title of its article, though there is nothing in the article that discusses Russia -
“America has lost now,” Rodrigo Duterte said, flagging closer ties with China and Russia during a visit to Beijing.
There is a strange misconception circulating among some in the west that Russia and China are good friends, some speaking as if they are practically joined at the hip.
And speaking of NOT friends, there are some interesting facts to come about the history of The US in The Philippines - a history that will explain much as to why The Philippines would be eager to declare their separatism and The US the loser.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 16:02.
Trump Endorsed Hillary, said that he liked both her and Bill very much.
Time, “In 2012, as Obama was running for re-election, Trump called Clinton “terrific” again in an interview with Fox News, saying she performed well as Secretary of State.”
Trump: Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman, he told Greta Van Susteren. I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.
Van Susteren: You said she’s out at the end of this term, do you think we’re going to see her again running for office?
Trump: I think so, assuming she’s healthy, which I hope she will be, I think she probably runs after the next four years, I would imagine.
Van Susteren: Do you support her?
Trump: I don’t want to get into this because I don’t want to get myself into trouble…
Van Susteren (interrupting): That’s why I asked you, to see if you’d get into trouble.
Trump: I just like her. I like her and I like her husband. Her husband made a speech on Monday at Mar-a-Lago (Palm Beach mansion owned by Trump) and it was very well received. He’s a really good guy and she’s a really good person and woman.
Trump’s hypocrisy indicates that the 2016 election is more characteristic of two sides of the same coin - a position that racialists used to be more wryly accustomed-to prior to the largely successful effort by the Republican party to co-opt White Nationalism. Recall Gov. George Wallace’s statement oft cited by WN, that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Party.”
In additional hypocrisy - 1998: Trump calls Paula Jones “a loser”, says that “she may be responsible for bringing-down a standing President (Clinton) indirectly.”
The Slatest, “Watch Donald Trump Call Paula Jones “a Loser” in 1998 Interview”, 9 Oct 2016:
Shortly before the second presidential debate started, Donald Trump held a jaw-dropping “news conference” with three women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault (and a third whose accused rapist was represented by Hillary Clinton). One of those women was Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee who sued Bill Clinton for sexual harassment.
Trump is now trying to portray himself as the champion for the women, yet he didn’t feel the same way in 1998. “Paula Jones is a loser, but the fact is that she may be responsible for bringing down a president indirectly,” Trump said in an interview with Chris Matthews on August 28, 1998. The interview took place mere days after Bill Clinton acknowledged he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
..and the “loser” is…
Jones had filed a lawsuit against Clinton, saying he had made inappropriate sexual advances toward her while he was governor of Arkansas. That suit was settled for $850,000 with no admission of guilt.
A bonus on what Trump used to think about Bill Clinton’s accusers is that he once pretty much said the only reason why the then-president got in trouble was because Lewinsky was ugly. “It’s sad because he would go down as a great President if he had not had this scandal,” Trump said in a 1999 interview with Maureen Dowd. “People would have been more forgiving if he’d had an affair with a really beautiful woman of sophistication. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe were on a different level.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 19:39.
ANTIMEDIA, “What Everyone is Missing About the Wikileaks Podesta Emails” - By Alice Salles 17 Oct 2016:
With WikiLeaks’ massive dump of emails tied to John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton who now serves as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, most news outlets focused on Podesta’s link to Mrs. Clinton, the current Democratic presidential candidate. But what few noticed is how Podesta’s emails may help us learn how President Barack Obama may have picked individuals for his top administration positions.
According to the emails published by WikiLeaks, Podesta, a former counselor to President Barack Obama who, in 2008, served as co-chair of Obama’s transition team, received an email on October 6, 2008, from Michael Froman, the current U.S. trade representative. At the time, Froman was a top executive at Citigroup.
Just a month before the election, an email from Froman with the subject “Lists” carried three attachments: A list of “African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, … plus a list of Native American, Arab/Muslim American and Disabled American candidates;” “a similar document on women;” and an outline of 31 cabinet-level positions, how they “might be put together,” and who would fill them.
In the email, Froman reassures Podesta the lists “will continue to grow, … but these are the names to date that seem to be coming up as recommended by various sources for senior level jobs.”
But looking back, it’s clear that at least the cabinet list ended up being the most valuable document, considering that most of the names “scoped out” by Citigroup’s Michael Froman went on to be picked by the Obama administration.
As explained by the New Republic:
“The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, et al.”
While this email was sent on October 6th, the exchanges between Podesta and Froman suggest the lists had been floating around long before that, proving that, as many had long suspected, this was just the tip of the iceberg; we now know executives were pulling the strings long before Obama was even elected.
Up until that point, candidate Obama had advertised himself as an anti-corporatist candidate, promising he would arrive at the White House and rid Washington of the “revolving door curse.” Nevertheless, Obama apparently set his promise aside before he was even elected, allowing a top Citigroup executive to pick the top names of his administration long before said executive joined his transition team.
With more revelations coming from the massive WikiLeaks’ dump, this small footnote seems to be getting little attention from mainstream media. This is, perhaps, because it paints President Obama in a bad light. Regardless, it’s important to note that what many call crony capitalism is alive and well in Washington and that the Democratic candidate from 2008 — much like the Democratic candidate of 2016 — may have promised to stand firm against big corporations and their influence while in office, only to act completely differently behind the curtain.
Yes, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is a disaster. But he’s not that different from Mrs. Clinton.
And as we now know, thanks to WikiLeaks, the old batch of Democratic top leaders and cronies continue to run the show, propping up the same politicians of yesteryear whose promises have already been broken repeatedly and whose policy positions remain flexible, just waiting for the highest bidder. Will we fall for it this time?
..illustrating the inherent instability of the right -
The reflexive reversal of Derek Black - precociously showing early signs to be a leader of White Nationalism, he has done a 180: he renounces anti-Semitism, studies Islamic culture, calling for empathy for this culture which “was advanced of European culture” at a time when Europe was a backwater; says that he agrees with Hillary Clinton’s positions in 97%; claims that he does not believe in the White genocide meme that he helped to popularize because “race is a false concept anyway.”
That comes along with an array of cultural Marxist concepts that he now subscribes-to.
Derek Black pictured Sept. 25, 2016. “It’s scary to know that I helped spread this stuff, and now it’s out there,” he told a friend, alluding to the ideology he once promoted. (Matt McClain/Washington Post)
“The leading light of our movement,” was how the conference organizer introduced him, and then Derek stepped to the lectern.
“The way ahead is through politics,” he said. “We can infiltrate. We can take the country back.”
[...]
He never used racial slurs. He didn’t advocate violence or lawbreaking. He had won a Republican committee seat in Palm Beach County, Fla., where Trump also had a home, without ever mentioning white nationalism, talking instead about the ravages of political correctness, affirmative action and unchecked Hispanic immigration.
He was not only a leader of racial politics but also a product of them. His father, Don Black, had created Stormfront, the Internet’s first and largest white nationalist site, with 300,000 users and counting. His mother, Chloe, had once been married to David Duke, one of the country’s most infamous racial zealots, and Duke had become Derek’s godfather. They had raised Derek at the forefront of the movement, and some white nationalists had begun calling him “the heir.”
Now Derek spoke in Memphis about the future of their ideology. “The Republican Party has to be either demolished or taken over,” he said. “I’m kind of banking on the Republicans staking their claim as the white party.”
A few people in the audience started to clap, and then a few more began to whistle, and before long the whole group was applauding. “Our moment,” Derek said, because at least in this room there was consensus. They believed white nationalism was about to drive a political revolution. They believed, at least for the moment, that Derek would help lead it.
“Years from now, we will look back on this,” he said. “The great intellectual move to save white people started today.”
[...]
“It’s been brought to my attention that people might be scared or intimidated or even feel unsafe here because of things said about me,” he began. “I wanted to try to address these concerns publicly, as they absolutely should not exist. I do not support oppression of anyone because of his or her race, creed, religion, gender, socioeconomic status or anything similar.”
The forum post, intended only for the college, was leaked to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which kept a public “Intelligence File” on Derek and other racist leaders, and the group emailed Derek for clarification. Was he disavowing white nationalism? “Your views are now quite different from what many people thought,” the email read.
Derek received the message while vacationing in Europe during winter break. He was staying with Duke, who had started broadcasting his radio show from a part of Europe with lenient free-speech laws. “The tea party is taking some of these ideas mainstream,” Duke said on a broadcast one morning. “Whites are finally coming around to my point of view,” he said another day, and even if Derek now thought some of what Duke said sounded exaggerated or even alarming, the man was still his godfather. Derek wrote back to the SPLC from Duke’s couch.
“Everything I said (on the forum) is true,” he wrote. “I also believe in White Nationalism. My post and my racial ideology are not mutually exclusive concepts.”
[...]
But the unstated truth was that Derek was becoming more and more confused about exactly what he believed. Sometimes he looked through posts on Stormfront, hoping to reaffirm his ideology, but now the message threads about Obama’s birth certificate or DNA tests for citizenship just seemed bizarre and conspiratorial. He stopped posting on Stormfront. He began inventing excuses to get out of his radio show, leaving his father alone on the air each morning to explain why Derek wouldn’t be calling in. He was preparing for a test. He was giving those liberal professors hell. Except sometimes what Derek was really doing was taking his kayak to the beach, so he could be alone to think.
He had always based his opinions on fact, and lately his logic was being dismantled by emails from his Shabbat friends. They sent him links to studies showing that racial disparities in IQ could largely be explained by extenuating factors like prenatal nutrition and educational opportunities. They gave him scientific papers about the effects of discrimination on blood pressure, job performance and mental health. He read articles about white privilege and the unfair representation of minorities on television news. One friend emailed: “The geNOcide against whites is incredibly, horribly insulting and degrading to real, actual, lived and experienced genocides against Jews, against Rwandans, against Armenians, etc.”
“I don’t hate anyone because of race or religion,” Derek clarified on the forum.
“I am not a white supremacist,” he wrote.
“I don’t believe people of any race, religion or otherwise should have to leave their homes or be segregated or lose any freedom.”
“Derek,” a friend responded. “I feel like you are a representative of a movement you barely buy into. You need to identify with more than 1/50th of a belief system to consider it your belief system.”
He was taking classes in Jewish scripture and German multiculturalism during his last year at New College, but most of his research was focused on medieval Europe. He learned that Western Europe had begun not as a great society of genetically superior people but as a technologically backward place that lagged behind Islamic culture. He studied the 8th century to the 12th century, trying to trace back the modern concepts of race and whiteness, but he couldn’t find them anywhere. “We basically just invented it,” he concluded.
“Get out of this,” one of his Shabbat friends emailed a few weeks after Derek’s graduation in May 2013, urging Derek to publicly disavow white nationalism. “Get out before it ruins some part of your future more than it already irreparably has.”
Derek stayed near campus to housesit for a professor after graduation, and he began to consider making a public statement. He knew he no longer believed in white nationalism, and he had made plans to distance himself from his past by changing part of his name and moving across the country for graduate school. His instinct was to slip away quietly, but his advocacy had always been public — a legacy of radio shows, Internet posts, TV appearances, and an annual conference on racial tactics.
He was still considering what to do when he returned home to visit his parents later that summer. His father was tracking the rise of white nationalism on cable TV, and his parents were talking about “enemies” and “comrades” in the “ongoing war,” but now it sounded ridiculous to Derek. He spent the day rebuilding windows with them, which was one of Derek’s quirky hobbies that his parents had always supported. They had bought his guitar and joined in his medieval re-enactments. They had paid his tuition at the liberal arts college where he had Shabbat dinners. They had taught him, most of all, to be independent and ideological, and to speak his beliefs even when doing so resulted in backlash.
He left the house that night and went to a bar. He took out his computer and began writing a statement.
“A large section of the community I grew up in believes strongly in white nationalism, and members of my family whom I respect greatly, particularly my father, have long been resolute advocates for that cause. I was not prepared to risk driving a wedge in those relationships.
“After a great deal of thought since then, I have resolved that it is in the best interests of everyone involved to be honest about my slow but steady disaffiliation from white nationalism. I can’t support a movement that tells me I can’t be a friend to whomever I wish or that other people’s races require me to think of them in a certain way or be suspicious at their advancements.
“The things I have said as well as my actions have been harmful to people of color, people of Jewish descent, activists striving for opportunity and fairness for all. I am sorry for the damage done.”
He continued to write for several more paragraphs before addressing an email to the SPLC, the group his father had considered a primary adversary for 40 years.
“Publish in full,” Derek instructed. Then he attached the letter and hit “send.”
Don was at the computer the next afternoon searching Google when Derek’s name popped up in a headline on his screen. For a decade, Don had been typing “Stormfront” and “Derek Black” into the search bar a few times each week to track his son’s public rise in white nationalism. This particular story had been published by the SPLC, which Don had always referred to as the “Poverty Palace.”
“Activist Son of Key Racist Leader Renounces White Nationalism,” it read, and Don began to read the letter. It had phrases like “structural oppression,” “privilege,” “limited opportunity,” and “marginalized groups” — the kind of liberal-apologist language Don and Derek had often made fun of on the radio.
“You got hacked,” Don remembered telling Derek, once he reached him on the phone.
“It’s real,” Derek said, and then he heard the sound of his father hanging up.
For the next few hours, Don was in disbelief.
[...]
Later that night, Don logged on to the Stormfront message board. “I’m sure this will be all over the Net and our local media, so I’ll start here,” he wrote, posting a link to Derek’s letter. “I don’t want to talk to him. He says he doesn’t understand why we’d feel betrayed just because he announced his ‘personal beliefs’ to our worst enemies.”
[...]
Late this summer, for the first time in years, he traveled to Florida to see them. At a time of increasingly contentious rhetoric, he wanted to hear what his father had to say. They sat in the house and talked about graduate school and Don’s new German shepherd. But after a while, their conversation turned back to ideology, the topic they had always preferred.
Don, who usually didn’t vote, said he was going to support Trump.
Derek said he had taken an online political quiz, and his views aligned 97 percent with Hillary Clinton’s.
Don said immigration restrictions sounded like a good start.
Derek said he actually believed in more immigration, because he had been studying the social and economic benefits of diversity.
Don thought that would result in a white genocide.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 14 October 2016 09:44.
Trump’s “anti-global elite speech”
He sandwiches a claim to be challenging the corrupt global elite on behalf of the (propositional) American people around a belabored defense against charges of sexual impropriety.
Besides going on a bit too long in defense against those claims, it is a skillful speech. He does much better than in the first two debates.
Of course he also skillfully bypasses the fact that he is in bed with the YKW and their global plans. While not necessarily a plant, Trump was obviously offered a chance at the presidency if he would take on the Iran deal. Upon his acceptance of that task, they opportunistically put him in front of trends that they can play to their advantage - not dog whistles, but biscuits and bones with even a bit of meat to throw at America’s proposition nation: “anti-globalism and internationalism”.. “the alternative right”..and “exposure of corrupt government” .. now that the Internet has made hiding these issues less possible… with panmixia already well under way anyway, suddenly WN are no longer encouraged to abide their long standing perspective of wryly looking upon the Republicans/Democrats as two sides of the same coin….The YKW have done well to corral WN into a voting block pro-American, anti PC with the “counter” of being anti-discriminatory ..to co-opt White nationalism and defuse it into propositionalism. Some Whites will continue to get richer there - the kind who do not care very much about race and the deteriorating prospects for ethnonationalism - prospects which will deteriorate further with a Trump presidency (no endorsement of Hillary implied).