[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, 09 October 2018 22:05.
In this photo July 21, 2016, photo, then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, right, watches with then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Manafort’s chief deputy Rick Gates, left, as Ivanka Trump rehearses for the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
New York Times, “Rick Gates Sought Online Manipulation Plans From Israeli Intelligence Firm for Trump Campaign”, 8 October 2018:
WASHINGTON — A top Trump campaign official requested proposals in 2016 from an Israeli company to create fake online identities, to use social media manipulation and to gather intelligence to help defeat Republican primary race opponents and Hillary Clinton, according to interviews and copies of the proposals.
The Trump campaign’s interest in the work began as Russians were escalating their effort to aid Donald J. Trump. Though the Israeli company’s pitches were narrower than Moscow’s interference campaign and appear unconnected, the documents show that a senior Trump aide saw promise in a disruption effort to swing voters in Mr. Trump’s favor.
The campaign official, Rick Gates, sought one proposal to use bogus personas to target and sway 5,000 delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention by attacking Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Mr. Trump’s main opponent at the time. Another proposal describes opposition research and “complementary intelligence activities” about Mrs. Clinton and people close to her, according to copies of the proposals obtained by The New York Times and interviews with four people involved in creating the documents.
Documents from Psy-Group laying out its proposals for the Trump campaign.
A third proposal by the company, Psy-Group, which is staffed by former Israeli intelligence operatives, sketched out a monthslong plan to help Mr. Trump by using social media to help expose or amplify division among rival campaigns and factions. The proposals, part of what Psy-Group called “Project Rome,” used code names to identify the players — Mr. Trump was “Lion” and Mrs. Clinton was “Forest.” Mr. Cruz, who Trump campaign officials feared might lead a revolt over the Republican presidential nomination, was “Bear.”
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 08 October 2018 06:08.
Joakim Lamotte - Image: Facebook
Voice of Europe, “Swedish journalist who writes about migrant violence threatened with his life – Police refuse to help”, 7 Oct 2018:
In a video blog, the freelance journalist Joakim Lamotte, who is best known for his videos about different rape cases and the increased violence against women in Sweden, explains why recently he hasn’t been as active on Facebook as usual.
The reason is that he has been subjected to systematic threats with the purpose to silence him and stop his journalistic activities.
Lamotte says that people call him and tell him that he should be slaughtered, that his wife should be slaughtered, that they are going to f*ck his entire family etc. Only this past weekend, he received over 40 calls of that kind.
A few days ago, he also received a bomb threat. A person announced that explosives had been placed on the family’s two cars. Lamotte says that he has reported all threats to the police, including the bomb threat. A police patrol was sent out to search the family’s home and investigate whether any bombs were placed as claimed. However, nothing was found.
Recently, Lamotte announced that he would live steam on Facebook. As a result, he received new phone threats. In one of the calls, a person told him that if he broadcasts live and talks about the threats he has received, he will be killed and “blown to pieces”. However, Lamotte decided not to be silenced and went through with broadcast despite the death threat.
“They will not succeed in scaring me into silence,” he says in the broadcast. However, he doesn’t get any support from the police in that decision.
Lamotte holds up a stack of envelopes from the police. They all contain information that the investigations related to the threats have been closed.
In one case, the police sent him confirmation that they had received his complaint, and a notification that the case was closed on the same day. The timestamps on the two documents show that the case had been closed less than one hour after the complaint had been received.
Lamotte doubts that the police have investigated the threats at all, since they had not even received the sound files with recordings of the threats that Lamotte sent them when they decided to close the case.
And he questions the principle of equality before the law. He is convinced that if a mainstream media journalist or a politician had been threatened, then Säpo (the Swedish Security Service) would have taken over the case and used large resources to find the perpetrators. This in contrast to, as now, the cases being closed by return post.
Threats to freedom of speech are not taken seriously in Sweden today, Lamotte says. And that is one of the main reasons why he, despite the threats, decided to go through with the broadcast.
The police’s deprioritisation of these kind of threats frighten many into silence, he says. Few people dare to speak their mind after receiving death threats.
He then states that, in the absence of police assistance, he has taken his own actions to protect himself and his family. Among other things, he has installed surveillance cameras and motion detectors on his site, so nobody can get close to his house or cars without being detected.
At the end of his video message Lamotte speaks directly to the threateners and tells them; “If you ever harm my family you will wish the police find you before I do”.
He then speaks for another minute, but the sound is muted, probably by Säpo who doesn’t care to protect him but finds it important to monitor, control and silence him.
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 Friday, 05 October 2018 06:05.
Big Brother, the boomer generation, is not watching, is not looking after your interests. He has disingenuously allowed the once more relevant fear of collectivism to be over-extended in his selfish interests at the expense of our group survival - not looking-after, but blocking “Little Brother,” viz., generation Xers corrective concern regarding atomization - the obvious vulnerability and destruction of our individuals and group, systemic survival thereupon.
And now these selfish pigs are aligning with right-wing Jewish interests - either naively or disingenuously - to bypass the ethnonational left corrective of gen-Xers, to instead mainline the parasite’s directives directly for an advanced stage take-over through generation internet bubble - instant experts, ‘knowing-it-all’ thanks to taking Big Brother’s (((directed vigilance))) against “The Left.” ...the YKW don’t want the gentiles to get any grass-roots union organizing ideas now that they have hegemony in all elite niches; they just want right-wingers who disingenuously or naively comply with thwarting those nascent Left Ethnonationalist challenges to them (let alone any coalition building of ethnonationalisms against them).
Little Brother’s Concerns are Not being looked-after.
... that is to say, necessary philosophical corrections of the Gen-Xers are not.
“The attempt to sideline positions such as this as on one side or the other of the “individual vs collective” divide is, itself, a most egregious Cartesian attack.”
The Hermeneuticist doesn’t side track issues by balancing concern for individual and collective (for example), in circulating corrective of Cartesian runaway, in this case of the boomer generations’ emphasis, which is now an over-emphasis on concerns over collectivization - but rather recognizes that the emphasis for our people now has to be more directed toward correcting our atomization as a people resulting from the rupture of ethnonationalist unionization and accountability thereof; which is destroying the very grounds even of what distinct individualism that European species affords.
All American highschoolers of the 50s and 60s were assigned (((Kafka’s))) book, with a sci-fi nightmare culmination in eusocial take-over. They were also assigned Orwell’s 1984 story of the negative utopian horrors of collectivism, to where the YKW had taken accountability, that is to say, accounts requested, beyond all reason (producing the insanity of the Stasi and a Merkel).
It is apparent now, that the parasite is encouraging WN in right-wing reaction against the so called left (against the cartoon exaggerations of their international left as disingenuously lumped with proper White and non-Jewish left ethnonationalism); that right wing reactions that double down in the reaction against YKW abuse of left conceptualization of the social and group, are being encouraged, where not prescribed by them as the parasite merges with the host Whites to drive over the top and to ultimate dissolution those aspects which will not be totally merged and controlled by its Jewish agenda for thorough supremacy over the “gentiles.”
The WN Right-Wing merges with and then reacts in accordance to the parasite’s directives and drives.
Wall Street owns the country. That was the opening line of a fiery speech that populist leader Mary Ellen Lease delivered around 1890. Franklin Roosevelt said it again in a letter to Colonel House in 1933, and Sen. Dick Durbin was still saying it in 2009. “The banks—hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created—are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill,” Durbin said in an interview. “And they frankly own the place.”
Wall Street banks triggered a credit crisis in 2008-09 that wiped out over $19 trillion in household wealth, turned some 10 million families out of their homes and cost almost 9 million jobs in the U.S. alone. Yet the banks were bailed out without penalty, while defrauded home buyers were left without recourse or compensation. The banks made a killing on interest rate swaps with cities and states across the country, after a compliant and accommodating Federal Reserve dropped interest rates nearly to zero. Attempts to renegotiate these deals have failed.
In Los Angeles, the City Council was forced to reduce the city’s budget by 19 percent following the banking crisis, slashing essential services, while Wall Street has not budged on the $4.9 million it claims annually from the city on its swaps. Wall Street banks are now collecting more from Los Angeles just in fees than it has available to fix its ailing roads.
Local governments have been in bondage to Wall Street ever since the 19th century despite multiple efforts to rein them in. Regulation has not worked. To break free, we need to divest our public funds from these banks and move them into our own publicly owned banks.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 02 October 2018 06:43.
New Observer, “New US Law Obliges Americans to Pay Unlimited Billions to Israel”, 1 Oct 2018:
In what has been described as an “unprecedented gift of executive power to Israel,” the US Congress has passed for the very first time a law that forces the American president to give Israel a minimum of $3.8 billion per year—without limitation and no matter what Israel does.
Passed by the House of Representatives on September 12, 2018, the “United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018” rolls back any limitations that the US places on the amount of “aid” American taxpayers must hand over to Israel.
The bill states in “Sec. 102. Statement of Policy) that it “shall be the policy of the United States to provide assistance to the Government of Israel in order to support funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, projectile, and other defense capabilities to help Israel meet its security needs and to help develop and enhance United States defense capabilities.”
According to a review of the law published by the If Americans Knew group, the AIPAC-lobbied law, introduced by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), whose maternal grandparents were Sephardic Jews, originally from the Ottoman Empire, who had been active in Cuba’s Jewish community, and Ted Deutch (D-Florida), whose grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Belarus, the bill is “even more generous to Israel than the Senate bill and the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding and “amounts to $7,230 per minute to Israel, or $120 per second.”
The If Americans Knew review adds that the bill “guarantees $38 billion to Israel over the next ten years” and “is a dramatic departure from the deal offered under President Obama’s 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
“Most dramatically, this new act would eviscerate the ability of President Trump and his successors for the next ten years to withhold United States aid to Israel,” the review continued.
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.
W. Barnett Pearce
In this photo July 21, 2016, photo, then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, right, watches with then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Manafort’s chief deputy Rick Gates, left, as Ivanka Trump rehearses for the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. (
Joakim Lamotte - Image: Facebook
