[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, 21 September 2017 06:24.
The key difference is that we are Left Ethnonationalists, therefore Not imperialists, not supremacists, with no aim of genocide or its denial; thus, if our organizational meetings were infiltrated the only possible complaint would be that we wanted separatism and sovereignty; we do not want “them” to be part of our government and governing; do not want them imposed upon us; and if they refuse our wish for separatism and sovereignty, then they are revealed as the imperialists, supremacists, the exploitative, the slave masters.
“Anti-fascist activist goes undercover with ‘alt right’ to expose movement’s rapid European expansion.”
Hope Not Hate report reveals how the group is breathing new life into once dormant far-right and racist groups around the world. A toxic mix of antisemitism, Islamophobia and sexism is revealed at the heart of the “alt-right” movement, following an investigation by an openly-gay anti-fascist activist that sheds new light on the far-right’s rising influence over political parties on both sides of the Atlantic.
Members of the group were caught discussing “gassing Jews” and killing their left-wing opponents after Hope Not Hate conducted a major study of white supremacists in the US and Europe.
The exposé reveals how the “alt-right” is breathing new life into once dormant far-right and racist groups around the world, uniting them under one international movement.
It uncovers the infiltration of the “alt-right” in the UK, with Sheffield-born blogger Paul Joseph Watson among those using their online following to reach audiences the traditional far-right has until now been unable to muster.
As a general principle The Independent avoids using the term “alt-right”, on the basis it is a euphemism employed to disguise racist aims.
The report says a second, “moderate” wing – dubbed the “alt-light” – has become increasingly influential on right-wing politics in Britain, pushing Ukip and others into ever-more hard-line territory.
Authors of the study The International Alternative Right: From Charlottesville to the White House also claim to have found links between the hard-right network and the Trump administration.
Speaking of his experiences infiltrating the network of white supremacists, Patrik Hermansson said: “For almost a year I’ve been at the heart of a world of extreme racism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, esoteric Nazi rituals and wild conspiracy theories.
“What I found was a movement that sometimes glorifies Nazi Germany, openly supports genocidal ideas and is unrelentingly racist, sexist and homophobic.”
Mr Hermansson said he first gained access to the movement after joining the far-right “think tank” London Forum, having claimed to have come to the UK as a disillusioned Swede curious about the “alt-right” and inspired by Brexit.
He was then introduced to other groups, including the Extremists Club and the Traditional Britain Group, which aims to “preserve the ancient traditions, peoples and beliefs” of the UK.
He said: “In this world, Holocaust denial and conspiracy theories are commonplace, so much so that a whole group exists to cater specifically for them.
“I spent endless mind-numbing hours at meetings of the [conspiracy theorist group] Keep Talking, listening to speakers deny climate change, debate whether 9/11 was a false flag attack or if an ill-defined ‘they’ sold birth certificates on the stock market. Trestle tables at the edge of the hall were adorned with Holocaust denial books.”
The label “alt-right” was first adopted by white supremacist Richard Spencer, but was brought to mainstream attention by individuals with a larger social media presence such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Mike Cernovich.
Occidental Dissent, “Chuck Schumer Caught On Hot Mic Discussing Budding Partnership With President Cuck”, 15 Sept 2017:
Hey, MAGApedes, I know you guys have gotten as slippery as water snakes in your defense of President Trump, but I would very much like to see y’all defend what you’re about to hear courtesy of C-SPAN and a nice steaming hot mic.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took to the Senate floor Thursday morning to discuss Equifax’s massive security breach; the physical limitations of a border wall; and his supposed agreement with President Trump, struck alongside his House counterpart Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to work to preserve protections for immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
But before he officially took to the floor, Schumer bounded into the Senate chamber just after a speech by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and took a minute to converse with a colleague. “Sorry, just got here. Anything new?” Schumer can be heard saying on C-SPAN2’s live feed of the Senate, though he’s not seen on video. Then: “He likes us! He likes me, anyway,” Schumer says with a chuckle.
Schumer is presumably referring to himself and Pelosi, and Trump’s apparent affection for them — or one of them, anyway. He continues telling his unseen colleague that the statement he and Pelosi put out about Trump’s DACA promise was “exactly accurate.” “Here’s what I told him,” Schumer continues. “I said: ‘Mr. President, you’re much better off if you can sometimes step right and sometimes step left. If you have to step just in one direction, you’re boxed.’ He gets that.”
Let’s just be real here, Brothers, it’s pretty damned bad.
Like, it’s so bad that there really isn’t much room for maneuver whatsoever.
You can’t even make the argument that there is some sort of negotiating ploy alive here – most folks would say that we’re either seeing Trump operating on a Sub-Saharan IQ level, or we’re merely watching Jewry pulling a move honed by both time and use among peoples ranging from the Pagan Romans to the Catholic Poles.
Honestly, I see neither situation at play here – instead I see a man who because of blackmail (increasingly unlikely), through ignorance gifted by being a member of the 1% (possible), or by infection with the same egalitarian corruption that permeates both political parties (most possible) cares little about the White Man in the United States.
He would rather break bread with liberal Jews (and marry his daughter off to one), than sit with the working man whose ancestors built up this country from swamp, woods, and hostile wilderness.
But hey, if you’re just an average Trump supporter, don’t think I’m mocking you or gloating in the downfall of the President – the biggest fanbois are just in it for the money, their brand, or are trapped into a personality cult due to weird daddy issues that may never be cured.
Like you, I too was caught up in the frenzy during 2015 and 2016, and at points I truly hoped that Donald would at the very least buy us time by enacting policies that really aren’t too radical when you break everything down.
I went to rallies, pushed The Don on normies sitting on the fence, and literally wrote 2,000 or so articles covering the most exciting political race in living memory.
I have no regrets, and I feel no remorse, but I would like you to take a long look at what the Alt-Right is offering – we’ll actually fullfil our promises, and we’ll actually work to make America (or at least a chunk of the country) great again.
Indeed, people should take a long hard look at what the Alt-Right is offering, doing, who they are collaborating with and not follow them into the Jewish bum steers that they take without regrets, remorse - without learning. People should also avoid following the Alt-Right’s self defeating reactions thereof.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 04 September 2017 06:00.
Background Briefing recently interviewed Johathan Taplin about his book, Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermine Democracy, and his op-ed at The New York Times, Google’s Disturbing Influence Over Think Tanks.
Some highlights: The New America Foundation funded a group called The Open Markets Group, which was headed by a guy named Barry Lynn; and they were the most important group of scholars looking at monopoly in America. When the EU sanctioned Google with a 2.7 billion dollar fine, The Open Markets Group put out a statement applauding the EU and saying American anti-trust regulators should follow their example. Eric Schmidt, the Executive Chairman of Google, who provides most of the financing for the New American Foundation, was incredibly angry about this and essentially told the leader of New America, Ann Marie Slaughter, that she had to get rid of the Open Markets Group. She then wrote Barry Lynn an email saying that they had to leave by September 1, and essentially fired them. This is exactly the kind of political pressure that Google plies all over the world in terms of not just academic institutions, but think tanks and others in order to keep the political narrative in their favor and not have people who oppose them.
They pay off academics and think tanks, getting them to write favorable articles (totaling a hundred from each) about Google and denying their monopoly. This is how Google curries influence by dominating the communications channels of Washington D.C.
Eric Schmidt, who is the biggest funder of the New American Foundation and who is one of the top executives at Google, was the number one visitor during the Obama administration. He was logged in more times visiting the White House than any other single person in the entire eight years of the administration.
Google’s regulatory capture: not only was Schmidt the most frequent White House visitor, more than any other CEO, by a long shot. But then Schmidt was able to put people from Google into the various agencies in the Obama administration. So, the person who ran the Patent Office was formerly the person who ran Google’s patent practice; the person who was the Assistant Attorney General for anti-trust in the Obama administration was the person who had been Google’s anti-trust attorney. Google had people high-up in The Federal Communications Agency. It was pernicious, it was everywhere…
One could say “Eric Schmidt is a liberal” and “he’s helping Hillary Clinton”, but literally the day after Clinton lost he was out there communicating with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the hopes of getting in bed with Trump. Not only did he extend invitations to them to come to his conference in Italy; but he also went to the White House and railed on about how Trump was going to be a great help to the economy with his new initiatives; so, its very clear that he has very little political conscience what-so-ever; he’s just going to go where the money is.
People from all sides are recognizing the Google has too much money and power to frame narratives, to shape and influence culture; its platforms such as Facebook and Youtube are not only the way 3/4 of Americans get real news, but also conduits of propaganda: e.g., Steve Bannon and the Mercers used market targeting in their campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton, used social media very skillfully with fake news, used Russian bots to amplify their effect. An interesting note along with that, the intelligence community observes that Eric Schmidt’s daughter worked for SCL, the company that controlled Cambridge Analytica - the company that Mercer owns and that Steve Bannon’s on the board of.
They couldn’t have done what they did if there hadn’t been these two open platforms, Facebook and Youtube, which you could totally manipulate; there was nobody at the control of these platforms to block fake news in favor of Trump. However, there is no pornography on Youtube, which means that Youtube has very sophisticated technology which could filter out fake news, propaganda, etc., if desired.
Google’s market capture is profound, its users provide content and profiles (which marketers value, of course) which competitors cannot match. Google is not just a virtual monopoly, not just one of the most wealthy companies, it is the richest company and perhaps the most powerful monopoly ever. More:
New York Times, “Is It Time to Break Up Google?”, 22 Aug 2017:
By Johathan Taplin
In just 10 years, the world’s five largest companies by market capitalization have all changed, save for one: Microsoft. Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Citigroup and Shell Oil are out and Apple, Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Amazon and Facebook have taken their place.
They’re all tech companies, and each dominates its corner of the industry: Google has an 88 percent market share in search advertising, Facebook (and its subsidiaries Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger) owns 77 percent of mobile social traffic and Amazon has a 74 percent share in the e-book market. In classic economic terms, all three are monopolies.
We have been transported back to the early 20th century, when arguments about “the curse of bigness” were advanced by President Woodrow Wilson’s counselor, Louis Brandeis, before Wilson appointed him to the Supreme Court. Brandeis wanted to eliminate monopolies, because (in the words of his biographer Melvin Urofsky) “in a democratic society the existence of large centers of private power is dangerous to the continuing vitality of a free people.” We need look no further than the conduct of the largest banks in the 2008 financial crisis or the role that Facebook and Google play in the “fake news” business to know that Brandeis was right.
While Brandeis generally opposed regulation — which, he worried, inevitably led to the corruption of the regulator — and instead advocated breaking up “bigness,” he made an exception for “natural” monopolies, like telephone, water and power companies and railroads, where it made sense to have one or a few companies in control of an industry.
Could it be that these companies — and Google in particular — have become natural monopolies by supplying an entire market’s demand for a service, at a price lower than what would be offered by two competing firms? And if so, is it time to regulate them like public utilities?
Consider a historical analogy: the early days of telecommunications.
In 1895 a photograph of the business district of a large city might have shown 20 phone wires attached to most buildings. Each wire was owned by a different phone company, and none of them worked with the others. Without network effects, the networks themselves were almost useless.
The solution was for a single company, American Telephone and Telegraph, to consolidate the industry by buying up all the small operators and creating a single network — a natural monopoly. The government permitted it, but then regulated this monopoly through the Federal Communications Commission.
AT&T (also known as the Bell System) had its rates regulated, and was required to spend a fixed percentage of its profits on research and development. In 1925 AT&T set up Bell Labs as a separate subsidiary with the mandate to develop the next generation of communications technology, but also to do basic research in physics and other sciences. Over the next 50 years, the basics of the digital age — the transistor, the microchip, the solar cell, the microwave, the laser, cellular telephony — all came out of Bell Labs, along with eight Nobel Prizes.
In a 1956 consent decree in which the Justice Department allowed AT&T to maintain its phone monopoly, the government extracted a huge concession: All past patents were licensed (to any American company) royalty-free, and all future patents were to be licensed for a small fee. These licenses led to the creation of Texas Instruments, Motorola, Fairchild Semiconductor and many other start-ups.
True, the internet never had the same problems of interoperability. And Google’s route to dominance is different from the Bell System’s. Nevertheless it still has all of the characteristics of a public utility.
We are going to have to decide fairly soon whether Google, Facebook and Amazon are the kinds of natural monopolies that need to be regulated, or whether we allow the status quo to continue, pretending that unfettered monoliths don’t inflict damage on our privacy and democracy.
It is impossible to deny that Facebook, Google and Amazon have stymied innovation on a broad scale. To begin with, the platforms of Google and Facebook are the point of access to all media for the majority of Americans. While profits at Google, Facebook and Amazon have soared, revenues in media businesses like newspaper publishing or the music business have, since 2001, fallen by 70 percent.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, newspaper publishers lost over half their employees between 2001 and 2016. Billions of dollars have been reallocated from creators of content to owners of monopoly platforms. All content creators dependent on advertising must negotiate with Google or Facebook as aggregator, the sole lifeline between themselves and the vast internet cloud.
It’s not just newspapers that are hurting. In 2015 two Obama economic advisers, Peter Orszag and Jason Furman, published a paper arguing that the rise in “supernormal returns on capital” at firms with limited competition is leading to a rise in economic inequality. The M.I.T. economists Scott Stern and Jorge Guzman explained that in the presence of these giant firms, “it has become increasingly advantageous to be an incumbent, and less advantageous to be a new entrant.”
There are a few obvious regulations to start with. Monopoly is made by acquisition — Google buying AdMob and DoubleClick, Facebook buying Instagram and WhatsApp, Amazon buying, to name just a few, Audible, Twitch, Zappos and Alexa. At a minimum, these companies should not be allowed to acquire other major firms, like Spotify or Snapchat.
The second alternative is to regulate a company like Google as a public utility, requiring it to license out patents, for a nominal fee, for its search algorithms, advertising exchanges and other key innovations.
The third alternative is to remove the “safe harbor” clause in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows companies like Facebook and Google’s YouTube to free ride on the content produced by others. The reason there are 40,000 Islamic State videos on YouTube, many with ads that yield revenue for those who posted them, is that YouTube does not have to take responsibility for the content on its network. Facebook, Google and Twitter claim that policing their networks would be too onerous. But that’s preposterous: They already police their networks for pornography, and quite well.
Removing the safe harbor provision would also force social networks to pay for the content posted on their sites. A simple example: One million downloads of a song on iTunes would yield the performer and his record label about $900,000. One million streams of that same song on YouTube would earn them about $900.
I’m under no delusion that, with libertarian tech moguls like Peter Thiel in President Trump’s inner circle, antitrust regulation of the internet monopolies will be a priority. Ultimately we may have to wait four years, at which time the monopolies will be so dominant that the only remedy will be to break them up. Force Google to sell DoubleClick. Force Facebook to sell WhatsApp and Instagram.
Woodrow Wilson was right when he said in 1913, “If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of the government.” We ignore his words at our peril.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 31 August 2017 09:35.
DM, “Police call for Notting Hill Carnival to be banned after 31 officers attacked during the two-day event”, 30 Aug 2017:
- Police were slashed with broken bottles, spat at, bitten and had acid thrown at them
- In one of the worst confrontations, three PCs had bloody spit sprayed in their faces
- Frontline police said ‘enough is enough’ and called for organisers to help safeguard them
- Four people were stabbed, more than 300 arrested and dozens of weapons seized
The Notting Hill Carnival was branded a disgrace last night after it was revealed that 31 police officers were attacked during the two-day event.
They were slashed with broken bottles, spat at, bitten and had acid thrown at them.
In one of the worst confrontations, three PCs had bloody spit sprayed in their faces by a man claiming to be HIV positive.
Frontline police said ‘enough is enough’ and called for organisers to help safeguard those who dedicate their lives protecting others.
Four people were stabbed, more than 300 arrested and dozens of weapons seized during Europe’s biggest street carnival. Although there were fewer arrests than last year’s record 454, a three-week crackdown had seen hundreds banned from attending.
Ken Marsh, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation representing the capital’s 32,000 rank-and-file officers, said at least 31 officers were attacked.
‘We cannot carry on like this. It is a disgrace,’ he said. ‘My brave colleagues were attacked for just doing their job.
‘This is not acceptable. What other event would be allowed to carry on regardless with so many police colleagues under attack?’
‘There is a growing lobby calling for the carnival to be moved to Hyde Park and made ticket-only to deter opportunist criminals. Changes were first proposed in 2000 when two men were murdered. In 2008 there was a riot.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 13 August 2017 05:00.
Unhinge the Right
Video shows car crashing into Charlottesville protest. Witnesses say that it was absolutely intentional; it is being treated as homicide.
Fox News, A 32-year-old woman was killed Saturday and 19 others were injured, five of them critically, when a car rammed into a group of counter-protesters during the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va.
Virginia Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran told the Associated Press that the driver of the car, a man, was in custody. Moran did not provide the driver’s name.
While following the goings on of the “Unite The Right Rally” in Charlottesville, in a live feed, Tara McCarthy took friendly questions from the likes of Roosh V. and fielded reports from the likes of Pax Dickinson, recommending that people contribute to his Mencious Moldbug (a Jewish man of Neo Reactionary fame) backed crowdfunding; Tara scolded “The Left” for counter-protesting what she says was meant to be a peaceful rally for free speech, and to encourage “normies” to join the cause of ethno-nationalism by showing them they’re not a bunch of neo-Nazis, skinheads and so-on. She might have wondered how that was supposed to happen with the motley array of right wingers that showed-up, including Commander Jeff Schoep’s Neo-Nazi group in full regalia, Carolina K.K.K., Matt Heimbach’s Jesus Freak Group, calling itself “The Traditional Workers Party” and a skinhead gang called “The Detroit Right Wings.”
Yep, (((they’ve))) marshaled a reactionary formation against the so-called “left.”
...with plenty of warning beforehand to nearly assure that there would be violence and prison sentences for those reactionaries coming most unhinged.
A death, dozens injured, including five critically, and a ruined life for the perpetrator of the car attack was only a somewhat surprising outcome of this mix.
Fox News, “Charlottesville white nationalist rally blamed for 3 deaths, dozens of injuries”, 12 Aug 2017:
A 32-year-old woman was killed Saturday and 19 others were injured, five of them critically, when a car rammed into a group of counter-protesters during the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va.
A helicopter crash that killed the pilot and a passenger later in the afternoon outside the university town also was linked to the rally by State Police, though officials did not elaborate on how the crash was connected.
At a late afternoon news conference, Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas said that 35 people had been injured in various confrontations during the rally and made a point of saying that none of those involved his officers. Thomas also said that the car crash was being treated as an act of “criminal homicide.”
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 09 August 2017 21:36.
Damore was fired from Google for writing a memo alleging reverse discrimination at Google.
Not only is Damore an idiot by evidence of his rendering of a beginner level, completely idiotic definition of the “the left”, a “definition” that is perfectly serviceable to Jewish and right-wing manipulation - i.e., suggesting that “the left is more open, while the right is more closed; the right is dealing with facts while the left is applying merely wishful social/humanitarian concepts to reality” - not only is this not someone worth listening to, but it is shocking that he and his statement would be trending exponentially at the lead among popular searches, such that he would be featured by the partial Jewish alt-liter, Stefan Molyneux - with popular concern far greater than the fact that North Korea (a regime propped up against the enemies of (((the Russian Federation))) now has 60 miniature (i.e., handy) nuclear bombs to deploy against the targets of their prerogative.
Meanwhile, the less naive, more obedient shabbos goy continue with their efforts to (mis)define and mislead people against “the left” as the enemy -
In yet another obnoxious effort to completely confound and conflate the idea of the left with liberalism, Jim Goad brings out someone calling himself “Michael Malice” - doing it again, here at the behest of (((Edwin Oslan’s Savage Hippie))) platform:
These people cannot be allowed to define what the left, i.e., social unionization, means for us. They cannot be allowed to cast it into universal and liberal terms, as if they are “just dealing with facts” while people concerned with full social groups are “just falsely applying liberal concepts” to reality.
Damore was fired from Google for writing a memo alleging reverse discrimination at Google.
Far right 
