[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 Monday, 28 October 2019 05:00.
My first impression of Richard Houck was negative because he was attempting to make the case that America was on the wrong side of World War II.
This argument is destructive because it reconstructs a misframing of events that misleads susceptible White American demographics into a framework that pits European peoples against one another.
Isn’t that the point of this frame, you may ask? No brothers wars?
Not if you are honest about Hitler’s war mongering imperialism, his disposition to not value the lives of neighbouring nations, and if you honestly understand those nations’ positions.
If you do care about these things and the truth be known, you don’t suggest that America was on the wrong side but that Hitler was largely to blame for initiating an unnecessary war, catastrophic of itself and catastrophic in an ongoing way beyond, in its implications, stigmatizing with ostensible warrant to prohibit European peoples from rightful prejudice, discrimination and thus, racial self defense.
But while Houck and his interviewer in this case, J.F. Gariepy, are not penetrating enough to think outside of the Jewish box - “Nazis or Jews” and “White identity is right wing and purely objective while non and anti White identity is left and concerned with relative social group interests” - in the name of fairness, I must say that Houck does articulate a kind of social compassion for our people which bespeaks a left ethnonationalist position in this talk.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 21 October 2019 15:10.
(((Facebook))) Donates $2.5 Million To (((ADL)))
October 17, 2019 Realist Report
Facebook, one of the world’s leading internet giants that is owned and controlled by liberalist Jews like Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, recently announced it would be donating $2.5 million to the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish supremacist organization dedicated to shutting down the First Amendment, eliminating criticism and factual statements about Jewish power and influence in the world, and promoting homosexuality, transgenderism, and massive Third World immigration into America.
The Jewish Telegraph Agency recently reported:
Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer at Facebook, has pledged $2.5 million to the Anti-Defamation League to support anti-hate programs in Europe and the United States.
Sandberg announced the gift on Wednesday in a post on Facebook — where else? — though she did not specify the amount. An ADL statement released minutes later said it would be $2.5 million.
In her post, Sandberg said she was making the contribution in honor of her parents’ 75th birthday and had been inspired to support the ADL specifically following the shooting last week outside a synagogue in Germany.
“A week ago, on Yom Kippur – the holiest day of the Jewish year – I was sitting in synagogue, thinking about how, earlier that day, a gunman showed up at a synagogue in Germany, hoping to kill as many Jews as he could,” Sandberg wrote. “He knew the temple would be full because of the holiday. In the end, a locked door kept him out, but he still managed to kill two people outside. Sitting in temple that day, I knew what my parents’ birthday present should be.”
The ADL’s national director, Jonathan Greenblatt, said the gift comes at a “critical juncture in the fight against bigotry.” […]
Two incredibly powerful, Jewish-run organizations – Facebook and the ADL – working hand in hand to “combat hate” and “fight against bigotry” – this is America in a nutshell these days. “Combating hate” and “bigotry” are really just Orwellian code words for shutting down any sort of honest, truthful discussion of Jewish power and influence, and their overall anti-White agenda, as regular readers are well aware of at this point.
The Jewish privilege and supremacy on display on a daily basis in this country is enough to make one sick. And yes, noticing these obvious realities is strictly verboten, politically and socially unacceptable, largely at least.
The dollar strengthened against the euro in August, merely in anticipation of the European Central Bank slashing its key interest rate further into negative territory. Investors were fleeing into the dollar, prompting President Trump to tweet on Aug. 30:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
The Euro is dropping against the Dollar “like crazy,” giving them a big export and manufacturing advantage…and the Fed does NOTHING! Our Dollar is now the strongest in history. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Except to those (manufacturers) that make product for sale outside the U.S.
64.8K
3:55 PM - Aug 30, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
19.6K people are talking about this
When the ECB cut its key rate as anticipated, from a negative 0.4% to a negative 0.5%, the president tweeted on Sept. 11:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
The Federal Reserve should get our interest rates down to ZERO, or less, and we should then start to refinance our debt. INTEREST COST COULD BE BROUGHT WAY DOWN, while at the same time substantially lengthening the term. We have the great currency, power, and balance sheet…..
59.3K
12:42 PM - Sep 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
21.7K people are talking about this
And on Sept. 12 he tweeted:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
European Central Bank, acting quickly, Cuts Rates 10 Basis Points. They are trying, and succeeding, in depreciating the Euro against the VERY strong Dollar, hurting U.S. exports…. And the Fed sits, and sits, and sits. They get paid to borrow money, while we are paying interest!
60.4K
2:13 PM - Sep 12, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
25.3K people are talking about this
However, negative interest rates have not been shown to stimulate the economies that have tried them, and they would wreak havoc on the U.S. economy, for reasons unique to the U.S. dollar. The ECB has not gone to negative interest rates to gain an export advantage. It is to keep the European Union from falling apart, something that could happen if the United Kingdom does indeed pull out and Italy follows suit, as it has threatened to do. If what Trump wants is cheap borrowing rates for the U.S. federal government, there is a safer and easier way to get them.
The Real Reason the ECB Has Gone to Negative Interest Rates
Why the ECB has gone negative was nailed by Wolf Richter in a Sept. 18 article on WolfStreet.com. After noting that negative interest rates have not proved to be beneficial for any economy in which they are currently in operation and have had seriously destructive side effects for the people and the banks, he said:
“However, negative interest rates as follow-up and addition to massive QE were effective in keeping the Eurozone glued together because they allowed countries to stay afloat that cannot, but would need to, print their own money to stay afloat. They did so by making funding plentiful and nearly free, or free, or more than free.
This includes Italian government debt, which has a negative yield through three-year maturities. … The ECB’s latest rate cut, minuscule and controversial as it was, was designed to help out Italy further so it wouldn’t have to abandon the euro and break out of the Eurozone.
The U.S. doesn’t need negative interest rates to stay glued together. It can print its own money.”
EU member governments have lost the sovereign power to issue their own money or borrow money issued by their own central banks. The EU experiment was a failed monetarist attempt to maintain a fixed money supply, as if the euro were a commodity in limited supply like gold. The central banks of member countries do not have the power to bail out their governments or failing local banks as the Fed did for US banks with massive quantitative easing after the 2008 financial crisis. Before the Eurozone debt crisis of 2011-12, even the European Central Bank was forbidden to buy sovereign debt.
Central bankers are out of ammunition. Mark Carney, the soon-to-be-retiring head of the Bank of England, admitted as much in a speech at the annual meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyo., in August. “In the longer-term,” he said, “we need to change the game.” The same point was made by Philipp Hildebrand, former head of the Swiss National Bank, in a recent interview with Bloomberg. “Really, there is little if any ammunition left,” he said. “More of the same in terms of monetary policy is unlikely to be an appropriate response if we get into a recession or sharp downturn.”
“More of the same” means further lowering interest rates, the central bankers’ stock tool for maintaining their targeted inflation rate in a downturn. Bargain-basement interest rates are supposed to stimulate the economy by encouraging borrowers to borrow (since rates are so low) and savers to spend (since they aren’t making any interest on their deposits and may have to pay to store them). At the moment, over $15 trillion in bonds are trading globally at negative interest rates, yet this radical maneuver has not been shown to measurably improve economic performance. In fact, new research shows that negative interest rates from central banks, rather than increasing spending, stopping deflation and stimulating the economy as they were expected to do, may be having the opposite effects. They are being blamed for squeezing banks, punishing savers, keeping dying companies on life support and fueling a potentially unsustainable surge in asset prices.
So what is a central banker to do? Hildebrand’s proposed solution was presented in a paper he wrote with three of his colleagues at BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, where he is now vice chairman. Released in August to coincide with the annual Jackson Hole meeting, the paper was co-authored by Stanley Fischer, former governor of the Bank of Israel and former vice chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve; Jean Boivin, former deputy governor of the Bank of Canada; and BlackRock economist Elga Bartsch. Their proposal calls for “more explicit coordination between central banks and governments when economies are in a recession so that monetary and fiscal policy can better work in synergy.” The goal, according to Hildebrand, is to go “direct with money to consumers and companies in order to enliven consumption,” putting spending money directly into consumers’ pockets.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 12 September 2019 06:00.
PewDiePie, with one of the largest YouTube audiences, gave $50,000 to the ADL, Youtube’s largest censor.
Mark Collett makes the case well in the recent [episode 19] Patriotic Weekly Podcast (58:04):
‘Dodo The Greatest Viking’ gave $10 Superchat: “Hey, what are your opinions on PewDiePie getting blackmailed by the ADL? ..stories just get more and more weird.”
Collett: “What do I think of PewDiePie giving fifty thousand dollars to the ADL? Now there are lots of people who are going to be very angry with what I say here, because no one wants to counter-signal the ‘great’ PewDiePie, because he was seen as the great White hope, the guy who was going to white-pill all these kids. The guy with a hundred million YouTube subs who could save us, could say what he wants because he was too big to fail; and he was ‘never going to cuck.’
But he did cuck.
He gave $50,000 to the primary source of censorship on the internet.
He gave $50,000 to the people taking away free speech for all the smaller YouTubers that can’t defend themselves - all the smaller YouTubers who haven’t got millions in the bank; or model wives, or giant, palatial homes. He gave money to the people trying to ruin them. So, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t care how big he is. I don’t care how important he is, I don’t care how many subs he has.. anyone who donates to the ADL is a rat. He is a rat and he has sold-out. He has spat on the smaller YouTubers that he used to proclaim that he wanted to protect. He has basically… they always say, ‘when you are at the top of the ladder, be kind to those beneath you. Don’t send rubbish back down the ladder on all those who are beneath you’, and he has done.
He just funded the group that want to take down people like E. Michael Jones, Nick Fuentes, Adam Green, myself, Jason, Patrick, Millennial Woes..
...and personally, I find it despicable. And I find it despicable as I said, for two reasons.
Firstly, anyone that funds them is our enemy.
Secondly, of all people on YouTube, of all of the people on YouTube, he did not have to give those people funding. He didn’t need to. He’s a multimillionaire. He has more money than anyone on this show, in this chat, will ever see in a life-time. He probably makes more money a year, than we’ll all see in a life-time. Yet he still cucked. Which just goes to show the size of his balls. How pathetic. And I’m certainly not going to sit here and be all nice because its PewDiePie. and if I saw him in real life, I’d say exactly the same thing to his face but probably in a much more amusing manner.
‘DL’, who gave $5 in the ‘superchat’ said (1:26:10): “you guys need to stop thinking in this low I.Q. manner; you have to remember that 50k is nothing compared to having a hundred million in audience; and that having access to that audience is worth far more than 50k.
Collett: “Well number one, I’m just going to answer this because that’s nonsense. Number one, when you have a hundred million people, subscribing to you, YouTube aren’t kicking you off; and if you did go to another platform, it wouldn’t affect your income at all, because you would run your own platform just as Ninja did. Ninja left Twitch, he was the biggest streamer on Twitch. He went to Mixer and all of a sudden, Mixer was his income. It doesn’t make any difference, the guy also has so much money in the bank, it doesn’t really make any difference. If he got kicked-off tomorrow and never earned another penny, he’d have more money than any of us put together ever. It makes no difference.
He did this because he’s a coward.
When you’re that big, you don’t need to cuck. I find it absurd. I’m very forgiving. I’m very kind to people. I help people out. He’s done nothing except for help the enemy; and tell everybody that the ADL is boss. Absolutely pointless and ridiculous.
We are again reaching the point in the business cycle known as “peak debt,” when debts have compounded to the point that their cumulative total cannot be paid. Student debt, credit card debt, auto loans, business debt and sovereign debt are all higher than they have ever been. As economist Michael Hudson writes in his provocative 2018 book, “…and forgive them their debts,” debts that can’t be paid won’t be paid. The question, he says, is how they won’t be paid.
Mainstream economic models leave this problem to “the invisible hand of the market,” assuming trends will self-correct over time. But while the market may indeed correct, it does so at the expense of the debtors, who become progressively poorer as the rich become richer. Borrowers go bankrupt and banks foreclose on the collateral, dispossessing the debtors of their homes and their livelihoods. The houses are bought by the rich at distress prices and are rented back at inflated prices to the debtors, who are then forced into wage peonage to survive. When the banks themselves go bankrupt, the government bails them out. Thus the market corrects, but not without government intervention. That intervention just comes at the end of the cycle to rescue the creditors, whose ability to buy politicians gives them the upper hand. According to free-market apologists, this is a natural cycle akin to the weather, which dates all the way back to the birth of modern economics in ancient Greece and Rome.
Hudson counters that those classical societies are not actually where our financial system began, and that capitalism did not evolve from bartering, as its ideologues assert. Rather, it devolved from a more functional, sophisticated, egalitarian credit system that was sustained for two millennia in ancient Mesopotamia (now parts of Iraq, Turkey, Kuwait and Iran). Money, banking, accounting and modern business enterprise originated not with gold and private trade, but in the public sector of Sumer’s palaces and temples in the third century B.C. Because it involved credit issued by the local government rather than private loans of gold, bad debts could be periodically forgiven rather than compounding until they took the whole system down, a critical feature that allowed for its remarkable longevity.
The True Roots of Money and Banking
Sumer was the first civilization for which we have written records. Its notable achievements included the wheel, the lunar calendar, our numerical system, law codes, an organized hierarchy of priest-kings, copper tools and weapons, irrigation, accounting and money. It also produced the first written language, which took the form of cuneiform figures impressed on clay. These tablets were largely just accounting tools, recording the flow of food and raw materials in the temple and palace workshops, as well as IOUs (mainly to these large public institutions) that had to be preserved in writing to be enforced. This temple accounting system allowed for the coordinated flow of credit to peasant farmers from planting to harvesting, and for advances to merchants to engage in foreign trade.
In fact, it was the need to manage accounts for a large labor force under bureaucratic control that is thought to have led to the development of writing. The people willingly accepted this bureaucratic control because they viewed the gods as having decreed it. According to their cuneiform writings, humans were genetically engineered to work the fields and the mines after certain lower gods tasked with that hard labor rebelled.
Usury, or the charging of interest on loans, was an accepted part of the Mesopotamian credit system. Interest rates were high and remained unchanged for two millennia. But Mesopotamian scholars were well aware of the problem of “debts that can’t be paid.” Unlike in today’s academic economic curriculum, Hudson writes:
Babylonian scribal students were trained already c. 2000 BC in the mathematics of compound interest. Their school exercises asked them to calculate how long it took a debt at interest of 1/60th per month to double. The answer is 60 months: five years. How long to quadruple? 10 years. How long to multiply 64 times? 30 years. It must’ve been obvious that no economy can grow in keeping with this rate of increase.
Sumerian kings solved the problem of “peak debt” by periodically declaring “clean slates,” in which agrarian debts were forgiven and debtors were released from servitude to work as tenants on their own plots of land. The land belonged to the gods under the stewardship of the temple and the palace and could not be sold, but farmers and their families maintained leaseholds to it in perpetuity by providing a share of their crops, service in the military and labor in building communal infrastructure. In this way, their homes and livelihoods were preserved, an arrangement that was mutually beneficial, since the kings needed their service.
Jewish scribes, who spent time in captivity in Babylon in the sixth century B.C, adapted these laws in the year or jubilee, which Hudson argues was added to Leviticus after the Babylonian captivity. According to Leviticus 25:8-13, a Jubilee Year was to be declared every 49 years, during which debts would be forgiven, slaves and prisoners freed and their property leaseholds restored. As in ancient Mesopotamia, property ownership remained with Yahweh and his earthly proxies. The Jubilee law effectively banned the outright sale of land, which could only be leased for up to 50 years (Leviticus 25:14-17). The Levitican Jubilee represented an advance over the Mesopotamian “clean slates,” Hudson says, in that it was codified into law rather than relying on the whim of the king. But its proclaimers lacked political power, and whether the law was ever enforced is unclear. It served as a moral rather than a legal prescription.
Ancient Greece and Rome adopted the Mesopotamian system of lending at interest, but without the safety valve of periodic “clean slates,” since the creditors were no longer the king or the temple, but private lenders. Unfettered usury resulted in debt bondage and forfeiture of properties, consolidation into large landholdings, a growing wedge between rich and poor, and the ultimate destruction of the Roman Empire.
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell. (Patrick Semansky / 
Image: 
