Majorityrights News > Category: Popular Culture

Connie Bisbee is Chairman of the Nevada Board of Parole. She addressed killer O.J. Simpson with giddy smiles at his parole hearing. In this moment (22:48 of the clip) she fawns over Simpson after accidentally citing his age as “90” - she gushed gleefully toward the murderer, Simpson, “that he looks great for 90.” Is it any surprise that killer O.J. got parole with the likes of her presiding?

Simpson should not have been able to touch Nicole Brown in the first place.

The story of Simpson beating Nicole because she was disturbing him with complaints about Simpson having sex with another woman in another room in the house is a particularly graphic example of black hyper-assertiveness. And a problem with White women in that regard - the allure of sheer confidence to them, which, overweening in blacks, apparently can become like a drug to some women; causing them to ignore if not forgive all manner of destruction in order to have that fix.

Related story: O.J. Simpson & Nicole Brown’s Alleles Combined

Rob Goldstone, left, shown in contact with Trump prior to his son’s meeting with Goldstone that promised high level Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Oh, Wait. Maybe It Was Collusion.

New York Times, Op-Ed Contributors JOHN SIPHER and STEVE HALL, August 2, 2017:

Did the Trump campaign collude with Russian agents trying to manipulate the course of the 2016 election? Some analysts have argued that the media has made too much of the collusion narrative; that Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with Kremlin-linked Russians last year was probably innocent (if ill-advised); or that Russian operatives probably meant for the meeting to be discovered because they were not trying to recruit Mr. Kushner and Mr. Trump as agents, but mainly trying to undermine the American political system.

We disagree with these arguments. We like to think of ourselves as fair-minded and knowledgeable, having between us many years of experience with the C.I.A. dealing with Russian intelligence services. It is our view not only that the Russian government was running some sort of intelligence operation involving the Trump campaign, but also that it is impossible to rule out the possibility of collusion between the two.

The original plan drawn up by the Russian intelligence services was probably multilayered. They could have begun an operation intended to disrupt the presidential campaign, as well as an effort to recruit insiders to help them over time — the two are not mutually exclusive. It is the nature of Russian covert actions (or as the Russians would call them, “active measures”) to adapt over time, providing opportunities for other actions that extend beyond the original intent.

It is entirely plausible, for example, that the original Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers was an effort simply to collect intelligence and get an idea of the plans of the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate. Once derogatory information emerged from that operation, the Russians might then have seen an opportunity for a campaign to influence or disrupt the election. When Donald Trump Jr. responded “I love it” to proffers from a Kremlin-linked intermediary to provide derogatory information obtained by Russia on Hillary Clinton, the Russians might well have thought that they had found an inside source, an ally, a potential agent of influence on the election.

The goal of the Russian spy game is to nudge a person to step over the line into an increasingly conspiratorial relationship. First, for a Russian intelligence recruitment operation to work, they would have had some sense that Donald Trump Jr. was a promising target. Next, as the Russians often do, they made a “soft” approach, setting the bait for their target via the June email sent by Rob Goldstone, a British publicist, on behalf of a Russian pop star, Emin Agalarov.

They then employed a cover story — adoptions — to make it believable to the outside world that there was nothing amiss with the proposed meetings. They bolstered this idea by using cutouts, nonofficial Russians, for the actual meeting, enabling the Trump team to claim — truthfully — that there were no Russian government employees at the meeting and that it was just former business contacts of the Trump empire who were present.

When the Trump associates failed to do the right thing by informing the F.B.I., the Russians probably understood that they could take the next step toward a more conspiratorial relationship. They knew what bait to use and had a plan to reel in the fish once it bit.

While we don’t know for sure whether the email solicitation was part of an intelligence ploy, there are some clues. A month after the June meeting at Trump Tower, WikiLeaks, a veritable Russian front, released a dump of stolen D.N.C. emails. The candidate and campaign surrogates increasingly mouthed talking points that seemed taken directly from Russian propaganda outlets, such as that there had been a terrorist attack on a Turkish military base, when no such attack had occurred. Also, at this time United States intelligence reportedly received indications from European intelligence counterparts about odd meetings between Russians and Trump campaign representatives overseas.

Of course, to determine whether collusion occurred, we would have to know whether the Trump campaign continued to meet with Russian representatives subsequent to the June meeting. The early “courting” stage is almost always somewhat open and discoverable. Only after the Russian intelligence officer develops a level of control can the relationship be moved out of the public eye. John Brennan, the former director of the C.I.A., recently testified, “Frequently, people who go along a treasonous path do not know they are on a treasonous path until it is too late.”

Even intelligence professionals who respect one another and who understand the Russians can and often do disagree. On the Trump collusion question, the difference of opinion comes down to this: Would the Russians use someone like Mr. Goldstone to approach the Trump campaign? Our friend and former colleague Daniel Hoffman argued in this paper that this is unlikely — that the Russians would have relied on trained agents. We respectfully disagree. We believe that the Russians might well have used Mr. Goldstone. We also believe the Russians would have seen very little downside to trying to recruit someone on the Trump team — a big fish. If the fish bit and they were able to reel it in, the email from Mr. Goldstone could remain hidden and, since it was from an acquaintance, would be deniable if found. (Exactly what the Trump team is doing now.)

If the fish didn’t take the bait, the Russians would always have had the option to weaponize the information later to embarrass the Trump team. In addition, if the Russians’ first objective was chaos and disruption, the best way to accomplish that would have been to have someone on the inside helping. It is unlikely that the Russians would not use all the traditional espionage tools available to them.

However, perhaps the most telling piece of information may be the most obvious. Donald Trump himself made numerous statements in support of Russia, Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks during the campaign. At the same time, Mr. Trump and his team have gone out of their way to hide contacts with Russians and lied to the public about it. Likewise, Mr. Trump has attacked those people and institutions that could get to the bottom of the affair. He fired his F.B.I. director James Comey, criticized and bullied his attorney general and deputy attorney general, denigrated the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and assails the news media, labeling anything he dislikes “fake news.” Innocent people don’t tend to behave this way.

The overall Russian intent is clear: disruption of the United States political system and society, a goal that in the Russian view was best served by a Trump presidency. What remains to be determined is whether the Russians also attempted to suborn members of the Trump team in an effort to gain their cooperation. This is why the investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, is so important. It is why the F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation, also quietly progressing in the background, is critical. Because while a Russian disruption operation is certainly plausible, it is not inconsistent with a much darker Russian goal: gaining an insider ally at the highest levels of the United States government.

In short, and regrettably, collusion is not off the table.

John Sipher (@john_sipher), a former chief of station for the C.I.A., worked for over 27 years in Russia, Europe and Asia and now writes for The Cipher Brief and works for CrossLead, a consulting company. Steve Hall (@StevenLHall1) is a former C.I.A. chief of Russian operations and a CNN national security analyst.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

In Tanstaafl’s latest theoretical fail:

The White Race and its Discontents:

He proffers:

1) “A civilization and its culture are racial constructs – the bottom up, grass-roots instincts of the masses largely modulated and moderated by the elite.”

This is a desperate and lame attempt to ignore the better understanding of social consructionism that I have had to explain time and again, because right wingers cannot adjust to the fact that they are reacting to a misrepresentation of the term.

They refuse to deploy the exercise of trying the word “mere” before “social construct” and observing that if you need that word, then it is Cartesian and not a concept that you would apply to something substantive like race.

The White race as a social construct - not merely, but substantively - already IS from the ground up and that, as a social construct, is a MUCH better way to look at it than the way that Tanstaafl says is THE way to look at the matter, i.e., that “civilization and culture are racial constructs” - that doesn’t even make logical sense (coming from a man who accused me of having poor logic): If he is emphasizing, as he does, the causal and deterministic aspect of our inheritance then why call it a “racial construct”?  ..call it a byproduct, perhaps..

But he won’t go with a proper understanding of social constructionism because he is beholden to his reactionary audience.

It is better to allow for our individual agency and contributions by talking in terms of social construct - it emphasizes our social responsibility, interdependence, degree of independence and most importantly, our people as central outlook and framework, not our subhuman nature.

Tanstaafl does not do this because he continually tries to suck Hitler to life again, desperately trying to make his subhuman ideology relevant again.

Social constructionism, properly understood, not only begins with the proper outlook, from our people, but does so in such a way that already begins with instinct and unconscious doings - we talk in terms of the agentive capacity to attribute how things count when they are on the more causative side of the spectrum. But they are never, mere constructs.

2) To illustrate how it is that Tanstaafl can’t get over his wish to try to redeem Hitler and make him relevant again: in the context of Trump’s speech in Poland, Tan tries the old, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway.”

No they aren’t - especially not if you apply agency as a social constructionist. It’s easier as a Pole, perhaps, to say I/we had nothing to do with Nazism; but it is not that hard for subsequent generations of Germans to reject the attribution of Nazism either.

3) In another example of how he wants to apply natural causality and tie our hands to passivity in regard to how the Jews say things count, Tan cites the infamous Susan Sontag quote - “White people are the cancer of the earth”  - in its full context; relishing the opportunity to attack one of my most cherished observations on behalf of our European people - i.e. that the Hippies were about midtdasein, Being amidst our people for White males as opposed to say, the endless war mongering of Hitler or the corporations and their draft into Vietnam - by saying that Sontag was endorsing the “freak-out” in order to promote sheer insubordination to older generations.

Well, that is how (((Sontag))) might try to say the hippies counted, that is NOT how we should say they counted. For us the rebellion of midtdasein against sheer war mongering could not have been a more relevant and authentic motive.

The New Republic, “Trump’s Russian Laundromat” July 2017:

How to use Trump Tower and other luxury high-rises to clean dirty money, run an international crime syndicate, and propel a failed real estate developer into the White House.

In 1984, a Russian émigré named David Bogatin went shopping for apartments in New York City. The 38-year-old had arrived in America seven years before, with just $3 in his pocket. But for a former pilot in the Soviet Army—his specialty had been shooting down Americans over North Vietnam—he had clearly done quite well for himself. Bogatin wasn’t hunting for a place in Brighton Beach, the Brooklyn enclave known as “Little Odessa” for its large population of immigrants from the Soviet Union. Instead, he was fixated on the glitziest apartment building on Fifth Avenue, a gaudy, 58-story edifice with gold-plated fixtures and a pink-marble atrium: Trump Tower.

A monument to celebrity and conspicuous consumption, the tower was home to the likes of Johnny Carson, Steven Spielberg, and Sophia Loren. Its brash, 38-year-old developer was something of a tabloid celebrity himself. Donald Trump was just coming into his own as a serious player in Manhattan real estate, and Trump Tower was the crown jewel of his growing empire. From the day it opened, the building was a hit—all but a few dozen of its 263 units had sold in the first few months. But Bogatin wasn’t deterred by the limited availability or the sky-high prices. The Russian plunked down $6 million to buy not one or two, but five luxury condos. The big check apparently caught the attention of the owner. According to Wayne Barrett, who investigated the deal for the Village Voice, Trump personally attended the closing, along with Bogatin.

If the transaction seemed suspicious—multiple apartments for a single buyer who appeared to have no legitimate way to put his hands on that much money—there may have been a reason. At the time, Russian mobsters were beginning to invest in high-end real estate, which offered an ideal vehicle to launder money from their criminal enterprises. “During the ’80s and ’90s, we in the U.S. government repeatedly saw a pattern by which criminals would use condos and high-rises to launder money,” says Jonathan Winer, a deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement in the Clinton administration. “It didn’t matter that you paid too much, because the real estate values would rise, and it was a way of turning dirty money into clean money. It was done very systematically, and it explained why there are so many high-rises where the units were sold but no one is living in them.” When Trump Tower was built, as David Cay Johnston reports in The Making of Donald Trump, it was only the second high-rise in New York that accepted anonymous buyers.

Semion Mogilevich.

In 1987, just three years after he attended the closing with Trump, Bogatin pleaded guilty to taking part in a massive gasoline-bootlegging scheme with Russian mobsters. After he fled the country, the government seized his five condos at Trump Tower, saying that he had purchased them to “launder money, to shelter and hide assets.” A Senate investigation into organized crime later revealed that Bogatin was a leading figure in the Russian mob in New York. His family ties, in fact, led straight to the top: His brother ran a $150 million stock scam with none other than Semion Mogilevich, whom the FBI considers the “boss of bosses” of the Russian mafia. At the time, Mogilevich—feared even by his fellow gangsters as “the most powerful mobster in the world”—was expanding his multibillion-dollar international criminal syndicate into America.

In 1987, on his first trip to Russia, Trump visited the Winter Palace with Ivana. The Soviets flew him to Moscow—all expenses paid—to discuss building a luxury hotel across from the Kremlin. Maxim Blokhin/TASS

Full article at New Republic

        Rubrics:

- Trump made his first trip to Russia in 1987, only a few years before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

- Throughout the 1990s, untold millions from the former Soviet Union flowed into Trump’s luxury developments and Atlantic City casinos.

- Trump Taj Mahal paid the largest fine ever levied against a casino for having “willfully violated” anti-money-laundering rules.

- The influx of Russian money did more than save Trump’s business from ruin—it set the stage for the next phase of his career. By 2004, to the outside world, it appeared that Trump was back on top after his failures in Atlantic City. That January, flush with the appearance of success, Trump launched his newly burnished brand…

- Russians spent at least $98 million on Trump’s properties in Florida—and another third of the units were bought by shadowy shell companies.

- In 2013, police burst into Unit 63A of Trump Tower and rounded up 29 suspects in a $100 million money-laundering scheme.

- In April 2013, a little more than two years before Trump rode the escalator to the ground floor of Trump Tower to kick off his presidential campaign, police burst into Unit 63A of the high-rise and rounded up 29 suspects in two gambling rings.

        Concluding paragraphs:

Semion Mogilevich, the Russian mob’s “boss of bosses,” also declined to respond to questions from the New Republic. “My ideas are not important to anybody,” Mogilevich said in a statement provided by his attorney. “Whatever I know, I am a private person.” Mogilevich, the attorney added, “has nothing to do with President Trump. He doesn’t believe that anybody associated with him lives in Trump Tower. He has no ties to America or American citizens.”

Back in 1999, the year before Trump staged his first run for president, Mogilevich gave a rare interview to the BBC. Living up to his reputation for cleverness, the mafia boss mostly joked and double-spoke his way around his criminal activities. (Q: “Why did you set up companies in the Channel Islands?” A: “The problem was that I didn’t know any other islands. When they taught us geography at school, I was sick that day.”) But when the exasperated interviewer asked, “Do you believe there is any Russian organized crime?” the “brainy don” turned half-serious.

“How can you say that there is a Russian mafia in America?” he demanded. “The word mafia, as far as I understand the word, means a criminal group that is connected with the political organs, the police and the administration. I don’t know of a single Russian in the U.S. Senate, a single Russian in the U.S. Congress, a single Russian in the U.S. government. Where are the connections with the Russians? How can there be a Russian mafia in America? Where are their connections?”

Two decades later, we finally have an answer to Mogilevich’s question.

READ MORE...

Oxygen Crime Time, “Man Accused Of Killing Girlfriend Over Cheating Accusations, 13 June 2017:

When arrested, the boyfriend’s car reeked of bleach.

On Sunday, state police arrested a Pennsylvania man accused of killing a missing woman. Ishemer D. Ramsey, 21, has been arrested on a homicide charge, and police believe he fatally shot his 26-year-old girlfriend.

According to the Butler Eagle, police believe they found the body of Melissa Barto on Monday night. Police suspect she was killed Thursday, allegedly by Ramsey.

“The body was burned rather badly,” said Trooper James Long said. “It was a pretty horrific scene.”

According to court documents, Ramsey allegedly told a witness the shooting happened during an argument in the defendant’s car after Ramsey accused Barto of cheating.

When police took Ramsey into custody following a traffic stop, they stated that his car reeked of bleach, and the passenger side seat was missing. In Ramsey’s possession, a .45-caliber pistol in a drop holster, police say.

On Friday morning, Barto’s mother reported her daughter missing, according to the report. She told police she last spoke to her daughter on Thursday.

On Saturday, a witness told police they saw Ramsey “cleaning and cutting the carpet” of the passenger side floor of his vehicle.

Two police officers interviewed Howard George, 23, on Saturday who told them that Ramsey confessed to him that he had killed the woman.

“Ramsey believed she was cheating,” the police affidavit said, “and stated that he wanted her gone.”

According to the Butler Eagle, Ramsey told George that he shot Barto in the head two times, and she said ‘you shot me,’ so Ramsey shot her a third time.

[Butler City Police Department]

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

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.

Symbolically enough, assumes Enoch Powell’s Wolverhampton seat.

Diversity Macht Frei, “Blacks celebrate white genocide: Negress elected to Enoch Powell’s old seat.”

10 June 2017:

LONGSTANDING LABOUR activist Eleanor Smith has made history by becoming the West Midlands’ first African Caribbean MP – but she’s also won a seat which is of enormous historic importance to the black community.

The swing seat of Wolverhampton South West was once the constituency of controversial Tory MP Enoch Powell, the politician behind the notorious Rivers of Blood speech which he gave 49 years ago warning of the consequences of unchecked immigration.

Smith, a hospital theatre nurse, who became the first-ever black woman president of Unison in 2011/2012 took the marginal seat by storm, scooping 49 per cent of the vote and beating Tory hopeful Paul Uppal by more than 2,000 votes.

In victory, after just two hours’ sleep, she was quick to pay tribute to the local people who voted for her, saying: “Our team was built from the community and the trade union movement – Unison – helped me greatly. The trade union movement put me where I am today, along with the community who came out and helped me win this seat.

“Through The Voice I’d like to personally thank everyone who voted for me in what turned out to be the highest ever turnout of 71 percent. We did it together as a community from the grassroots upwards and I certainly won’t let you down.

“We have a wonderfully diverse community here in Wolverhampton, which is a microcosm of the UK and rich in so many different faith groups.

“As a health professional, I am standing up to defend the NHS. From my own experience of being a nurse on the the front line – I was working until only recently doing 12-hour shifts – we can see what’s happening and we don’t like it. I have got to defend this.”

Her other pledge is to move from her home in Northfield, Birmingham, near to where she worked at Birmingham’s Women’s Hospital, to live in the constituency she will serve.

She told The Voice: “You cannot support your constituency if you don’t know what is going on there. I intend to have my finger on the pulse in my own patch.”

Smith also pledged to tackle homelessness in Wolverhampton and youth unemployment which currently stands at 27%.

On the issue of taking over Enoch Powell’s old seat, she told The Voice: “I feel it closes that chapter now for good.”

         

Source

Powell’s full “Rivers of Blood” speech, not read by Powell himself, however.