Majorityrights News > Category: That Question Again

ITV, “Donald Trump Jr releases Russian meeting emails”, 11 July 2017:

Donald Trump’s eldest son was offered a meeting with a Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton as part of a Kremlin-sponsored effort to boost Mr Trump’s presidential campaign, according to documents released today.

      He replied: “If it’s what you say I love it”.

Donald Trump Jr published what he said were the full transcripts of his emails with a businessman who offered to set up the meeting in the run-up to the 2016 elections which took his father to victory.

It comes as he faces growing scrutiny over what appears to be strongest evidence yet of direct Russian links to the Trump presidential campaign at the highest levels.

The transcripts show Mr Trump Jr, who was deeply involved in his father’s presidential campaign, was told he was being passed the contact as “part of Russia and it’s Government’s support for Mr Trump”.

Russian Oligarch’s son, Rob Goldstone

The transcripts indicate that Mr Trump Jr was contacted in early June 2016 by music publicist Rob Goldstone, whom he had met at a 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

It offered to put him in contact with a Russian lawyer who he said had information that would “incriminate” rival presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

         

“This is obviously very high-level and sensitive information but it is part of Russia and it’s Government’s support for Mr Trump,” the message said.

It added the information “would be very useful to your father”.

“If it’s what you say I love it, especially later in the summer,” Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone in the exchanges which he posted to Twitter.

The emails say the alleged leak came via the “Crown Prosecutor of Russia”. That is a position that does not exist, though Russia does have a Prosecutor General.

Mr Trump Jr has acknowledged that a meeting with the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, did subsequently take place at Trump Tower.

He insisted that in fact no information on Clinton was given to him, and the supposed leak was “the most inane nonsense I ever heard”.

The Trump Jr. delegation was actually disappointed with Veselnitskaya. They had sought more dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The growing concern over the contact comes after allegations that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to benefit Mr Trump.

Those claims are currently the subject of an ongoing politically-charged investigation in the US.

Mr Trump has firmly denied that there was any contact between his campaign and the Russian government.

Last updated Tue 11 Jul 2017

READ MORE...

       
Tara McCarthy Interviews Colin Flaherty: Don’t Make The Black Kids Angry, Youtube.com, 10 July 2017.

In addition to Nigerians, now the most dominant nationality in terms of arrivals, Guineans (13,345), Ivoirians (12,396), Gambians (11,929), Malians (10,010) and Senegalese (10,327) were all amongst the top 10 countries of origin of arrivals in Italy in 2016.  Furthermore, “most refugees and migrants in Libya are young single men,” ...and significantly, “many engage in circular or repetitive migrations”—in other words, go around and around, collecting money and welfare handouts from liberal Europeans along the way.

New Observer, “70% of Nonwhite Invaders ‘Not fleeing War,’ UN Admits” 4 July 2017:

At least 70 percent of the nonwhite flood currently invading Europe are not fleeing conflict at all—and those claiming to be Syrians are a tiny minority of the remaining 30 percent, a new report from the United Nations has admitted.

Titled “Mixed Migration Trends in Libya: Changing Dynamics and Protection Challenges,” the new report was prepared by Altai Consulting in partnership with IMPACT Initiatives (IMPACT), for the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in Libya.

According to the politically correct report, “30 percent [of] migrants are fleeing conflict or persecution,  [while] 70 percent of those arriving in Italy are economic migrants with little chance of receiving asylum.”

Most of the invaders massing in Libya come from West African states like Nigeria, Gambia and Guinea.  According the study, the vast majority of invaders are young, single men with little or no education.  About 14 percent are unaccompanied minors, mainly from Eritrea, Gambia and Nigeria.

Based on interviews on the ground, the study found that about half of the invaders had moved to Libya to seek work, but then “decided to move on to Europe.”

Almost all the invaders were suing the “rapidly expanding criminal trafficking networks, both to enter Libya through the porous southern desert border and onward by boat to Europe.”

“The smuggling industry has grown increasingly professional and transnational smuggling organizations further developed,” the report said. “Armed groups play an increasingly dominant role in the smuggling industry.”

The report went on to reveal that many of the invaders “report travelling to Libya for economic reasons,” and, significantly , “many engage in circular or repetitive migrations”—in other words, go around and around, collecting money and welfare handouts from liberal Europeans along the way.

“Nationals of West and Central Africa countries: mainly from Nigeria, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Cameroon, these people report having left largely for economic reasons,” the report continued.

“Nationals of Eastern Africa countries: from Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan. They reported making the journey for a range of reasons including political persecution, conflict, and economic distress in their countries of origin.

“Individuals from other regions: Syrians, Palestinians, Iraqis, Moroccans, Bangladeshis and others. Syrians, Palestinians and Iraqis flee conflict and violence while others are looking for livelihood opportunities.”

Another significant change is the increase in West and Central Africans, who now represent well over half of all arrivals to Europe, the report added.

In addition to Nigerians, now the most dominant nationality in terms of arrivals, Guineans (13,345), Ivoirians (12,396), Gambians (11,929), Malians (10,010) and Senegalese (10,327) were all amongst the top 10 countries of origin of arrivals in Italy in 2016.

Furthermore, “most refugees and migrants in Libya are young single men,” and “families travelling as a unit are rare, except among Syrians and Palestinians.”

TVN24, “Permanent presence of American troops in Poland is our aim”, 5 July 2017:

“Security understood very broadly – military, energy security – will be the most important issue for President Andrzej Duda during his talks with U.S. President Donald Trump,” announced President’s spokesman Krzysztof Łapiński in “Fakty z Zagranicy”, TVN24 BiS. The minister was asked what the President’s plans were for his talks with the American President, what would be the most important issue for him, what he would like to hear from Trump or what kind of deal he would like to do with him.

“We know roughly what topics the talks will touch on. It is no secret that security [will be the key topic], security understood very broadly,” replied Łapiński. “On the one hand, military security, the presence of American troops in Poland, NATO, and on the other hand, energy security,” he explained.

“Security guarantees” “So, as of today, American soldiers are stationed [in Poland], and we are hoping that their presence will be permanent. It is important that these soldiers – whether they will be rotated once a year or once every two years, or three, this is less important. What is important is that American troops will be present in Poland, because this constitutes a security guarantee,” added Łapiński.

Asked how long the two Presidents’ tête-à-tête would be, he answered that it was expected to last about 25 minutes. Trump and Russia (http://www.tvn24.pl)

On Tuesday, in an interview for the wyborcza.pl website, Łapiński was asked if President Andrzej Duda hoped Trump would confirm the U.S. commitment to NATO during his visit to Poland. “Every day we see that President Trump and the United States confirm their commitment to the alliance, because American soldiers, who came here, are still stationed on the Polish soil. President Trump has never issued any signal or indication to justify any doubts, he never said that the presence of American soldiers in Poland was a bad idea,” the minister said.

The President on Trump’s visit: it cannot be ruled out that it will have historic significance

Asked whether the President expected Trump to announce permanent, rather than merely rotating presence of U.S. troops in Poland, he replied: “This is our aim. Whether such a declaration will be made now or at some other point is a question we should ask President Trump. The minister was also asked about charges made against Trump, concerning his alleged pro-Russian stance. Łapiński recalled the fact that one of Trump’s advisers, who had concealed his contacts with Russia, was dismissed. “President Trump himself, since he took office, has not given any indications that he was contemplating a deal with Russia over our heads,” stressed Łapiński. Źródło: tvn24.pl, wyborcza.pl/ tłumaczenie Intertext.com.pl (http://www.tvn24.pl)

Could have historic significance and impact on Poland indeed.

....as imposition of foreigners would: black, well financed and militarily equipped.

RHF Solicitors’ Festenstein advising Tommy Robinson.

Diversity Macht Frei, Tommy Robinson meets 12 Jews to beg for kosher certification, gets 400 quid”, 5 July 2017:

Tommy Robinson meets 12 Jews to beg for kosher certification. His employer (Ezra Levant) is Jewish. The lawyer (Robert Festenstein) he talks to in the video he makes is Jewish. He goes to Israel and proclaims himself a “Zionist”. And what does he get for all this effort? 400 quid, a denunciation from the Board of Deputies and every other mainstream Jewish organisation, repudiation by the Jewish lawyer he spoke to and an article in the Jewish Chronicle warning Jews not to associate with him.

Will the poor deluded Gentile fools in the Counterjewhad movement ever wake up and acknowledge the role Jews are playing in facilitating the islamisation of Europe, or indeed their role (link) as collaborators of Muslims throughout history, including in the creation of Islam itself?

The JC, “Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson holds secret meeting with Manchester Jews”, 4 July 2017:

JLM members had been left “outraged” after learning of the event.

Members of Manchester’s Jewish community held a secret meeting with Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the far-right English Defence League.

The controversial meeting, which took place in Prestwich last week, was billed as a charity fundraiser, but also saw Mr Robinson deliver a speech outlining his extreme views on Islam.

The JC spoke to one community member who confirmed her friends had organised the session, but said she would “take legal action” if her own name was linked to the event.

Another source confirmed the meeting with Mr Robinson, who is a former British National Party member, went on until “the early hours” of last Thursday morning. Around a dozen people attended.

Invitations to attend were extended to other community groups including the North West Friends of Israel – but its spokesman Anthony Dennison said the group had declined the invitation.

Mr Dennison said: “We find some of Tommy Robinson’s opinions abhorrent. Unfortunately in our community there are a small number of people who are attracted his policies.

“This is unacceptable, and something North West Friends of Israel will never be associated with.”

       

READ MORE...

Darwin Digest: North, East and West Africa. ...“We” was Not Kangs.

         
            ...It has been said that Greg is rather nondescript.

Greg Johnson discusses Heidegger’s Black Notebooks, which include Heidegger’s most clear statements on the Jewish question.

On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction - when Jewish victimology turns attention to Jews as the victimizers, Jewish exceptionalism is invoked as “Neo” - “As long as I can remember I’ve been a ‘Neo’-Something: A Neo-Marxist, a Neo-Trotskyist, a Neo-Liberal, a Neo-Conservative and in religion, always, Neo-Orthodox, even while I was a Neo-Trotskyist and a Neo-Marxist….I’m going to end up a Neo, just Neo, that’s all.”

Intersectionality: Jewish ordering and exceptionalism in victimology - the “Neo-exceptions” of victimology in the age of treason:

Tanstaafl usually provides incisive insight into Jewish machinations. As he does here in his observation of “intersectionality”, recognizing that to be the point at which Jewish victimology turns attention back to them as the victimizers - which then requires their interests to propose their exceptionalism to the rule - a rule which might be wiggled-out-of as they don themselves “neo” this or that.

Tan’s incisiveness can, however, cut off important “ambiguities” - “ambiguities” that provide means for learning, creativity and agency in the realm of praxis - Tan accuses me of “jargon” for this word, which outlines the interactivity of the social world and its impossibility to predict 1000% for the human capacity for reflexive agency in responses; e.g., I was surprised by Tan when he wanted me to clearly understand that he had “no problem with Hitler.” I expected him to change that, to observe problems, at least some problems with Hitler’s worldview after a reading on his former network of the chapter in Table-Talk, viz., where Hitler discusses his opinion of Ukrainians, the subservient role he saw for those not killed in resistance to his aspiration for aggrandizement of their land. Tan had, after all, objected to Carolyn’s insulting support of Hitler’s disparagement.

Typically in this post also then, we should look-out for some blind spots in Tan’s analysis for his tacit identification with a right-wing perspective, particularly Nazi apologetics.

The wish to vindicate Hitler can make for an over-focus, even if slightly, on Jews as the problem. If Jews were THAT much of the problem, virtually the only problem, then Hitler is apparently, largely vindicated for his “minor indiscretions”. It is not that there should not be strong focus on on the J.Q. But it becomes an “over-focus” when in that incisive focus it parses-out and does not afford discussion of our part, our agency - where any sort of ambiguity is not allowed-for as it does not follow the “logic” of the J.Q. (us or them) - as was the case where Tan’s logic accused someone like me of trying to distract, minimize or malign those who focus on the J.Q. Whereas I am, in fact, merely calling for the need to also examine the part some of our people play (as if we don’t know that Jews like Alana Mercer try to focus singularly on that side of the equation) in our situation, with Jews and otherwise.

When Tan seeks to vindicate Hitler and unburden guilt and agency among his community of sympathizers - by suggesting rather that I am minimizing the J.Q., the singularly paramount issue, a life and death struggle against Jewish interests, as he expresses it - Tan is pushing Whites in the direction of repeating the same mistake, of headlong and disastrous reaction for wont of sufficiently deep and broad epistemic preparation - a necessary grounding especially in the praxis of European ethno-national coordination (which the motive of Hitler vindication precludes). 

Furthermore, by not allowing for the “ambiguity” of praxis he performs an additional disservice by going along with a Jewish default on left and right - i.e., where they can’t get you to cop to being a right winger or an alt-righter, they want you to say, as Tan does, “left and right is not a useful distinction.” Tan adds cleverly, I am a “White winger.”

While he has criticized Lawrence Auster for making liberalism the problem and not Jews, his overly precise focus has bi-passed the fact that liberalism is the problem in the sense that liberalism unfolds characteristically, in reality, as license against group classificatory interests - a consequent in reality especially given the manicheanism of Jewish interests which exaggerate and instigate that liberal prerogative indeed; though liberalism as it follows consequently of insufficient account to our interests is still the manifest problem, even if Auster complains about it, even if instigated by Auster’s fellow YKW: And particularly if liberalism is hidden beneath titular conservatism, as in neo-conservatism or paleoconservatism, or the mistakenly presumed conservatism of Christianity - as any sort of conservatism that they propose will be under their Noahide control; thus not conservative of our sovereign classificatory interests.

Worse, Tan says that Gottfried wants to blame liberalism as well - and so he does, but even more so does Gottfried want to blame and vilify “The Left” - the unionized accountability to social classification - and to position White identity against it - and has, in the form of the Alternative-Right - everybody is blaming “the left” as a result of the language game Gottfried set in motion. And while it is not always correct to play “opposite day”, in this case, it is - we should be asking why Gottfried et al. want us to do that? What is wrong about a White Right - Alt-Right or otherwise? Even more significantly, what is correct about a White Left perspective such that Gottfried et al. do not want us to identify with it?

I do believe that Tan’s blind spots stem from his starting point in defense of his partial German heritage, partly from his STEM-nerd background as well, which has been overly-reinforced against the helpful ambiguities of praxis by right-wing reactionary communities in The US. Thus, he will gain dubious support, for example by fellow Hitler apologist Wolf Wall Street - who will call Tan “the greatest epistemologist in White Nationalism”. When in fact, epistemology is one of Tanstaafl’s blind spots and weak points.

That doesn’t mean that most of what Tan has to say isn’t good - it is. His amplification of the matter of crypsis is an important contribution. But incisive, good and significant as his citing “anti-racism as a Jewish construct” is, it hardly renders insignificant my observation that “anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and killing people.” His statement can be seen as a focus on the major pathogen afflicting European peoples, while my statement focuses on the fundamental element of our systemic immuno-deficiency.