Majorityrights News > Category: Journalism

Can the Daily Mail say “Muslim” ?

Is it so hard to say Islam? How about the fact that all of these rapists come from one notoriously Islamic area in Pakistan. Glossing over that fact by calling them “Asians” is an obvious obfuscation on the part of DM editors.

Mark Duell for MailOnline, 17 October 2016:

‘All white girls are good for is sex. They’re just sl*gs’: Eight members of ‘openly racist’ violent Asian sex gang raped and ‘sexually degraded’ three teenage girls in Rotherham.

WHAT WERE THE 8 GANG MEMBERS CONVICTED OF?

The jury retired to consider verdicts on October 11 and today convicted all eight gang members on all counts after deliberating for almost 18 hours.

Ringleader Sageer Hussain, 30, of Clough Road, Rotherham, was convicted of four rapes and one indecent assault.

Mohammed Whied, 32, of Psalters Lane, Rotherham, was found guilty of one count of aiding and abetting rape.

Ishtiaq Khaliq, 33, of Cherry Brook, Rotherham, was found guilty of one rape and three indecent assaults.

Waleed Ali, 34, of Canklow Road, Rotherham, was found guilty of one rape and one indecent assault.

Asif Ali, 30, of Clough Road, Rotherham, was convicted on one rape.

Masoued Malik, 32, of Bridgewater Way, Rotherham, was found guilty of one rape, one count of conspiracy to commit indecent assault and one of false imprisonment.

Basharat Hussain, 40, from Goole, was convicted of one indecent assault.

And Naeem Rafiq, 33, of Clarendon Road, Rotherham, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit indecent assault and one of false imprisonment.

They were remanded in custody for sentencing on November 4.

The Dark Side of Self Actualization

..illustrating the inherent instability of the right -

The reflexive reversal of Derek Black - precociously showing early signs to be a leader of White Nationalism, he has done a 180: he renounces anti-Semitism, studies Islamic culture, calling for empathy for this culture which “was advanced of European culture” at a time when Europe was a backwater; says that he agrees with Hillary Clinton’s positions in 97%; claims that he does not believe in the White genocide meme that he helped to popularize because “race is a false concept anyway.”

That comes along with an array of cultural Marxist concepts that he now subscribes-to.

Derek Black pictured Sept. 25, 2016. “It’s scary to know that I helped spread this stuff, and now it’s out there,” he told a friend, alluding to the ideology he once promoted. (Matt McClain/Washington Post)

The Washington Post, “The white flight of Derek Black”, 15 Oct 2016:

“The leading light of our movement,” was how the conference organizer introduced him, and then Derek stepped to the lectern.

“The way ahead is through politics,” he said. “We can infiltrate. We can take the country back.”

[...]

He never used racial slurs. He didn’t advocate violence or lawbreaking. He had won a Republican committee seat in Palm Beach County, Fla., where Trump also had a home, without ever mentioning white nationalism, talking instead about the ravages of political correctness, affirmative action and unchecked Hispanic immigration.

He was not only a leader of racial politics but also a product of them. His father, Don Black, had created Stormfront, the Internet’s first and largest white nationalist site, with 300,000 users and counting. His mother, Chloe, had once been married to David Duke, one of the country’s most infamous racial zealots, and Duke had become Derek’s godfather. They had raised Derek at the forefront of the movement, and some white nationalists had begun calling him “the heir.”

Now Derek spoke in Memphis about the future of their ideology. “The Republican Party has to be either demolished or taken over,” he said. “I’m kind of banking on the Republicans staking their claim as the white party.”

A few people in the audience started to clap, and then a few more began to whistle, and before long the whole group was applauding. “Our moment,” Derek said, because at least in this room there was consensus. They believed white nationalism was about to drive a political revolution. They believed, at least for the moment, that Derek would help lead it.

“Years from now, we will look back on this,” he said. “The great intellectual move to save white people started today.”

[...]

“It’s been brought to my attention that people might be scared or intimidated or even feel unsafe here because of things said about me,” he began. “I wanted to try to address these concerns publicly, as they absolutely should not exist. I do not support oppression of anyone because of his or her race, creed, religion, gender, socioeconomic status or anything similar.”

The forum post, intended only for the college, was leaked to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which kept a public “Intelligence File” on Derek and other racist leaders, and the group emailed Derek for clarification. Was he disavowing white nationalism? “Your views are now quite different from what many people thought,” the email read.

Derek received the message while vacationing in Europe during winter break. He was staying with Duke, who had started broadcasting his radio show from a part of Europe with lenient free-speech laws. “The tea party is taking some of these ideas mainstream,” Duke said on a broadcast one morning. “Whites are finally coming around to my point of view,” he said another day, and even if Derek now thought some of what Duke said sounded exaggerated or even alarming, the man was still his godfather. Derek wrote back to the SPLC from Duke’s couch.

“Everything I said (on the forum) is true,” he wrote. “I also believe in White Nationalism. My post and my racial ideology are not mutually exclusive concepts.”

[...]

But the unstated truth was that Derek was becoming more and more confused about exactly what he believed. Sometimes he looked through posts on Stormfront, hoping to reaffirm his ideology, but now the message threads about Obama’s birth certificate or DNA tests for citizenship just seemed bizarre and conspiratorial. He stopped posting on Stormfront. He began inventing excuses to get out of his radio show, leaving his father alone on the air each morning to explain why Derek wouldn’t be calling in. He was preparing for a test. He was giving those liberal professors hell. Except sometimes what Derek was really doing was taking his kayak to the beach, so he could be alone to think.

He had always based his opinions on fact, and lately his logic was being dismantled by emails from his Shabbat friends. They sent him links to studies showing that racial disparities in IQ could largely be explained by extenuating factors like prenatal nutrition and educational opportunities. They gave him scientific papers about the effects of discrimination on blood pressure, job performance and mental health. He read articles about white privilege and the unfair representation of minorities on television news. One friend emailed: “The geNOcide against whites is incredibly, horribly insulting and degrading to real, actual, lived and experienced genocides against Jews, against Rwandans, against Armenians, etc.”

“I don’t hate anyone because of race or religion,” Derek clarified on the forum.

“I am not a white supremacist,” he wrote.

“I don’t believe people of any race, religion or otherwise should have to leave their homes or be segregated or lose any freedom.”

“Derek,” a friend responded. “I feel like you are a representative of a movement you barely buy into. You need to identify with more than 1/50th of a belief system to consider it your belief system.”

He was taking classes in Jewish scripture and German multiculturalism during his last year at New College, but most of his research was focused on medieval Europe. He learned that Western Europe had begun not as a great society of genetically superior people but as a technologically backward place that lagged behind Islamic culture. He studied the 8th century to the 12th century, trying to trace back the modern concepts of race and whiteness, but he couldn’t find them anywhere. “We basically just invented it,” he concluded.

“Get out of this,” one of his Shabbat friends emailed a few weeks after Derek’s graduation in May 2013, urging Derek to publicly disavow white nationalism. “Get out before it ruins some part of your future more than it already irreparably has.”

Derek stayed near campus to housesit for a professor after graduation, and he began to consider making a public statement. He knew he no longer believed in white nationalism, and he had made plans to distance himself from his past by changing part of his name and moving across the country for graduate school. His instinct was to slip away quietly, but his advocacy had always been public — a legacy of radio shows, Internet posts, TV appearances, and an annual conference on racial tactics.

He was still considering what to do when he returned home to visit his parents later that summer. His father was tracking the rise of white nationalism on cable TV, and his parents were talking about “enemies” and “comrades” in the “ongoing war,” but now it sounded ridiculous to Derek. He spent the day rebuilding windows with them, which was one of Derek’s quirky hobbies that his parents had always supported. They had bought his guitar and joined in his medieval re-enactments. They had paid his tuition at the liberal arts college where he had Shabbat dinners. They had taught him, most of all, to be independent and ideological, and to speak his beliefs even when doing so resulted in backlash.

He left the house that night and went to a bar. He took out his computer and began writing a statement.

“A large section of the community I grew up in believes strongly in white nationalism, and members of my family whom I respect greatly, particularly my father, have long been resolute advocates for that cause. I was not prepared to risk driving a wedge in those relationships.

“After a great deal of thought since then, I have resolved that it is in the best interests of everyone involved to be honest about my slow but steady disaffiliation from white nationalism. I can’t support a movement that tells me I can’t be a friend to whomever I wish or that other people’s races require me to think of them in a certain way or be suspicious at their advancements.

“The things I have said as well as my actions have been harmful to people of color, people of Jewish descent, activists striving for opportunity and fairness for all. I am sorry for the damage done.”

He continued to write for several more paragraphs before addressing an email to the SPLC, the group his father had considered a primary adversary for 40 years.

“Publish in full,” Derek instructed. Then he attached the letter and hit “send.”

Don was at the computer the next afternoon searching Google when Derek’s name popped up in a headline on his screen. For a decade, Don had been typing “Stormfront” and “Derek Black” into the search bar a few times each week to track his son’s public rise in white nationalism. This particular story had been published by the SPLC, which Don had always referred to as the “Poverty Palace.”

“Activist Son of Key Racist Leader Renounces White Nationalism,” it read, and Don began to read the letter. It had phrases like “structural oppression,” “privilege,” “limited opportunity,” and “marginalized groups” — the kind of liberal-apologist language Don and Derek had often made fun of on the radio.

“You got hacked,” Don remembered telling Derek, once he reached him on the phone.

“It’s real,” Derek said, and then he heard the sound of his father hanging up.

For the next few hours, Don was in disbelief.

[...]

Later that night, Don logged on to the Stormfront message board. “I’m sure this will be all over the Net and our local media, so I’ll start here,” he wrote, posting a link to Derek’s letter. “I don’t want to talk to him. He says he doesn’t understand why we’d feel betrayed just because he announced his ‘personal beliefs’ to our worst enemies.”

[...]

Late this summer, for the first time in years, he traveled to Florida to see them. At a time of increasingly contentious rhetoric, he wanted to hear what his father had to say. They sat in the house and talked about graduate school and Don’s new German shepherd. But after a while, their conversation turned back to ideology, the topic they had always preferred.

Don, who usually didn’t vote, said he was going to support Trump.

Derek said he had taken an online political quiz, and his views aligned 97 percent with Hillary Clinton’s.

Don said immigration restrictions sounded like a good start.

Derek said he actually believed in more immigration, because he had been studying the social and economic benefits of diversity.

Don thought that would result in a white genocide.

Derek thought race was a false concept anyway.

BuzzfeedNews,  “Revealed: Nearly Half The Adults In Britain And Europe Hold Extremist Views” 7 Oct 2016:

Exclusive: A groundbreaking new study of 12 European countries has revealed how far anti-immigrant, nationalist, and authoritarian attitudes have spread from the political fringes.

Almost half of the adults in 12 European countries now hold anti-immigrant, nationalist views, according to major new research that reveals the spread of fringe political views into the mainstream.

BuzzFeed has been given exclusive access to new data from YouGov, which polled more than 12,000 people across the continent to measure the extent of what it termed “authoritarian populist” opinions – a combination of anti-immigration sentiments, strong foreign policy views, and opposition to human rights laws, EU institutions, and European integration policies.

The YouGov findings are the first to capture the political attitudes that are both fuelling, and being fuelled by, upheaval across Europe and beyond – from the continent’s refugee crisis and the Brexit vote in Britain, to the burkini ban in France, to the rise of Donald Trump and the radical “alternative right” in the US.

In Britain, the poll found authoritarian populist attitudes were shared by 48% of adults, despite less than 20% of the population identifying itself as right-wing. Three months on from the EU referendum, prime minister Theresa May has responded this week by appealing directly to disaffected working-class voters with a promise to crackdown on immigration and reassert British sovereignty.

In France, a clear majority of people surveyed – 63% – held authoritarian populist views, while in Italy the figure was 47%. In Germany, it was 18%, which appears low by comparison but, given the country’s history and the extreme nature of its far-right groups, is regarded by analysts as surprisingly high.

The highest levels of authoritarian populist views were recorded in Romania and Poland, where they were held by 82% and 78% of adults respectively. In Lithuania, by contrast, the poll did not did not detect any evidence of the authoritarian populist phenomenon at all.

       
Hover over the map to view the proportion of authoritarian populists in each country.
*In Romania authoritarian populist attitudes were pro-EU unlike in the other countries surveyed. Chris Applegate/BuzzFeed

Well then, these views are not “extreme” in any terms but those of the (((legacy media))).

Before I post Bill’s lovely, just one editorial note, and you can all guess what it’s going to be about. The (((YKW))) misrepresentation of the crucial notion of post modernity. I cannot blame him for reviling “post modern relativism” as it has been (((presented and distorted))).

Just one caveat on Bill’s comment thus regarding his indispensable experience of (((post modernity)))  - White post modernity is a difference that makes a difference in that it recognizes that we are relative to and different from other cultures. Therefore, it seeks to manage our ways given that awareness, as opposed to the oblivious, modernist, narcissistic unawareness of important differences in others - oblivious to that, it proceeds destructively in modernization, in “progress” toward “universal foundations”, a notion that underwrites the liberal upshot of its agenda, the boundless destruction, without a White post modern turn or recognition of the legitimacy and importance of reconstructing our inherent, relative forms.

Of course (((YKW))) are heavily influential in the BBC and take advantage by misusing what modicum of agency that relativism provides, to completely distort and abuse that and what might otherwise be benign and healthy notions of a diverse and multicultural world.

One other note: Auster should be written (((Auster))) to be clear, so that his motives come to attention.

On the BBC, “Posted by Bill on Sun, 02 Oct 2016 16:01”

To chronical the role of television (MSM) in the modern age would take a tome.

So what do I mean when I say we’re all a BBC construct now?

I suppose what I’m saying in a roundabout way is the BBC is the most powerful institution in the land, far outweighing the influence of our elected governments.  Nobody votes for the BBC, few know their names and yet they have this immense cultural vice like grip on a whole population.

Fortunately for me, my lifespan has almost mirrored exactly that of the British Broadcasting Corporation.  Born in 1938 you might say I’ve grown up with the BBC, especially with regard to the development of Television.  By the onset of 1950’s I was old enough to appreciate this marvel of the modern age.  Back in those days I cannot claim to know how television would progress and what role it would play in the future of my country.  However, I can say for certain one cannot today measure the distance in years the gulf of character of 1950’s to what television has become today.  In a way, myself and those of my generation have had a ringside seat in witnessing the progress and development of post war television from Muffin the Mule to Star Trek?

With hindsight, the 1950’s to me represented the pinnacle of old Britishness.  I could give an account of how it was for me, but suffice to say, by the onset of the 1960’s the Britishness I loved so much - had gone.  Mostly, I don’t have the time to narrate how this sea change came about, but I did witness first-hand what a vital part BBC television has played in Britain’s downfall.  I also heavily note (by passive viewing) the era of the 1950’s is unfailingly depicted by the BBC as oppressively deferential, wishing good riddance and a kick up the backside to the decade.  I can only ask did the producers and script writers experience living during the 1950’s?  As an aside, television has been given a new task – the rewriting of history.  This sinister trait is in conjunction with the complete destruction of white identity.  I note postmodern relativism rearing its head here.  One man’s meat is another man’s poison!  Hmm!  Don’t let’s go down that road. 

As I commented above, the role of the BBC’s remit from the beginning was to sway the whole of the British public into accepting whatever the BBC were peddling.  I used the term normalising the status quo.  In a nutshell, the BBC (media) have, over many decades, inculcated into the British viewer’s psyche the acceptance of mass immigration into their living space.  With undreamed of success.

Fast forward to the present narrative which is dominating certain sections of the Internet and one can see how successful the media have been.  All those here know perfectly well the tactics employed with such professional dedication, I don’t think I need to expand.  It has never ceased to amaze me over the years how little comment from bloggers has been on the subject of the role of the media’s devastating contribution to Britain’s demise.

I’ve lost count of the number of my comments saying without the input of British media influence, the elite’s agenda could not have succeeded to the absolute degree it has.  The hubris of the media and its hanger’s on knows no constraint, to them they are cock-a-hoop basking in success beyond all expectation.  Who can argue with that?

The BBC’s talking heads jubilantly polish their halos and declare Multicultural Britain is a fact and resounding success.  Does this mean the media will relax its grip on poor battered Britain?  Is it all over?  To quote those immortal words of Kenneth Wolstenholme – It is now!

I asked here some time ago.  Before Facebook and Twitter had grown to what it is today, what were the chances of a ‘revealing mail’ going viral thereby highlighting the parlous plight of whites.  I’m surprised the media has not been forced to enter this conversation, surely the centre cannot hold – something’s got to give.

I can’t wait for that moment.

As I write this, the political western world (as Blair once opined) is in flux.  The kaleidoscope has been shaken - the pieces are still falling.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:07:

We’re all a BBC construct now.

Question to the BBC …. Who do you think you’re talking to?

I don’t watch television save the BBC news mostly at lunchtime.

From my lofty perch at my computer I note how normal everything seems.  Neighbours chatting going about their chores, children ready for school, the postman on his round.  This is how it’s always been for all of my life.  Neat houses - manicured lawns.  Most folk at work, leaving a peaceful dormer suburb to welcome them home at the end of a day’s work.  From my window I reflect on the just seen news and ask myself how can this be?  This state of affairs is cognisant dissonance on a pandemic scale

More likely than not I’m looking and listening on screen at a non-white face confidently reading from the autocue informing me my nation’s current events and history. Be it political, economic, whatever, maybe even the burning question of reintroduction of Grammar schools or whatever else- to distract the viewer to look the other way.

Do the native Brits watch the news with their eyes wide shut, can’t they see what’s coming down the pike?  Perhaps more importantly - do they care?

Recently we had the Olympic Games from Brazil, for which the whole of the BBC’s output for the duration was the glorification of the nation state of these isles.  The BBC are very picky as to how they portray the nation to the nation’s viewers, whether to glorify or denigrate.  Praise the natives for their tolerance, or amp up the megaphone of racism for such as Brexit.  It’s all according in what context our nation is being judged by the media.  The BBC basks in the reflected glory of supremacism of team Britain and yet in reality, in the eyes of the BBC we’re all equal, and yet in other quarters, they denigrate our browbeaten population into abject submission.

Our country is on the cusp, it’s reached its tipping point.  Old Britain is slowly receding to the water’s edge.  Britain already is no more.  Alien people in their millions from every quarter of the globe setting sights on reaching Britain, the indigenous Brits, balefully gazing, have no answers.

All of which, leads me to ask again of the BBC, to whom are you addressing?  Is it Somali’s, Bangladeshi’s, Syrians, Filipinos, Iranians, Indians or a myriad of other communities from around the Globe?  Perhaps, just perhaps, it is the native people of this land but I doubt it, for long ago they have been abandoned to a fate we know not which.

I suspect the BBC will respond by jubilantly declaring that Britain is now a multi-cultural, multi-racial society - we are as one.  Get over it!

When young Turks straight from uni gather in the newsroom to compile the latest news, how do they decide which community to address?

I watched a piece recently about the centenary of the Battle of Jutland, I couldn’t help but notice how incongruous it all seemed.  A non-white face telling a white nation of its history.  Do the BBC do it deliberately?

All of this leads a once homogenous people to disorientation and chaos,  without bearing,  how can the BBC talk to a whole nation with any degree of consensus?  I despair how the British people have allowed this state of affairs to come to pass.  To me it defies gravity.

It is manifestly clear the BBC (MSM) have been charged with normalising the situation for the past 60 years.  People can’t say they were never warned.

Auster was right, the English have done it to themselves.  They didn’t resist - and are still not resisting.

Bulldog Spirit!  You must be joking!

While black violence does cut across geographic and economic contexts, “White violence” (((is given “affirmative action”))) - it is exaggerated by counting “Hispanic” and Middle Eastern violence among “White violence”; while “Hispanics” and Middle Easterners are counted as “non-White” when the victims of violent crime!

TNO, “Black Murder Violence Swamps US”, 29 September 2016:

There were 15,696 murders in America in 2015, and nonwhites made up the vast majority of offenders, according to the latest FBI statistics.

According to the FBI, 70 percent of all murder offenders in the U.S. are nonwhite—but they include all Hispanics as “whites,” which means that the actual white offender rate is tiny.

The figures also make it clear that nonwhite—and specifically black—violence and murders are swamping the U.S., with a dramatic 10.8 percent increase in the number of homicides from 2014 to 2015.

The murder rate—which has now reached a staggering 43 homicides per day—is driven primarily by black and Hispanic gunmen.

According to the FBI, 30.2 percent of murder offenders arrested in 2015 were classified as “white”—but the FBI infamously follows the Federal Government guidelines of race, which includes all Hispanics as “whites.”

The Federal Government only has the following categories of offenders: “white,” “black,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. All Hispanics are added to the “white” category, along with all North Africans, Arabs, Middle Easterners, and Jews.

As a result, the “30 percent white” murder offender figures are grossly exaggerated.

For example, a 2014 report revealed that the murder rate for Hispanics is twice the murder rate for whites, and homicide is the second-leading cause of death for Hispanics ages 15 to 24.

TNO, “Charlotte: Anti-White Hatred Erupts”, 22 September 2016:

Simmering anti-white hatred—generated by decades of controlled media bias and establishment politics—has erupted in in Charlotte, North Carolina, with thousands of blacks roaming the streets attacking whites at random.

The excuse being used this time is bizarre: a black policeman, Brentley Vinson, shot an armed black thug, Keith Lamont Scott, who threatened police as they arrived to serve a warrant on another black man.

There is therefore no reason to attack whites in “retaliation” for the shooting—but this fact has not stopped anti-white hatred erupting across the city, as the “Black Lives Matter” narrative, pushed and endorsed by the media and corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton has created the completely mythical idea that white police officers randomly gun down blacks at will.

As a result of that relentless 24×7 hate propaganda, any shooting involving police in America is automatically presumed by the low IQ black masses to be another example of “white racism.”

For example, the brother Keith Lamont Scott, while being interviewed by local TV stations about his brother’s death, told the cameras, “I just know that all white people are f-cking devils,” and that “All white cops are f-cking devils, and white people.”