[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[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, 14 April 2016 05:00.
Click image for video updating events on the fronts of this theater.
Jeffery Samandar
The simple and unbiased answer is that Russia most probably cannot bring about a reasonable resolution (from the Russian perspective) to the Syrian crisis. This is for multiple reasons. I’ll talk about these lightly so you can do your own research.
Foremost reason being Russia’s own military strategy. Review statements from Valery Gerasimov, Russia’s General Staff of the Armed Forces. He has stated that current and future military issues cannot be resolved by traditional military tactics. Russia now heavily favors Guerrilla warfare tactics to accomplish their objectives. (See war in Ukraine.) This stems from their inability to conduct normal military operations outside of Russian borders due to NATO and other threats.
Next issue is resources. Russia is also going through a nasty economic turmoil. They have like 15% inflation and GDP growth is falling. This is to say that any kind of mass deployment to Syria by Russia is likely to exceed its capacity to finance such an expedition.
Additionally, Russia has had to reorganize its entire military structure around these economic short comings. They now operate on the Brigade level rather than on the Divisional level. That’s good for “frogman” operations going on in Ukraine and counter insurgency operations like Chechnya, but not for large scale street by street offensive sweeps. There’s too much command and logistical overhead.
Also, what units would you pull into the fight? The big issue here is that Russia is heavily involved in the fighting in Ukraine. Russia almost surely seeks to occupy more of Ukraine, well past the current Donbass front. (See failure of Minsk II agreement.) What that means is that Russia is using its crack forces in Ukraine, probably up to 10,000 men in Donbass alone, and that significantly cuts into Russia’s ability to redeploy these men or their resources to another theater of conflict.
Considering how big the opposition in Syria is (probably over 150,000 “rebels/terrorists”) Russia would need to deploy at least 15,000-20,000 men. That would be like the whole of the VDV! (which would never be used in this application). My point is that Russia would have to bring in hordes of conscript soldiers, and they are unmotivated to fight and take disproportional higher casualties (see war in Chechnya). This is more expensive in every possible way, and is massively unpopular back in Russia.
All of this is to say that Russia is incapable of resolving this issue by brute force. I think they have been very smart in how they’ve handled the situation so far. They support their ally up to a reasonable ability and leave the liberation of Syria to Syrians. Syrians must resolve this issue themselves or with the aid of an Arabic Coalition, which isn’t going to happen as the Arab states are largely against the Al-Assad government.
Very regrettably, it seems as if the war will continue on: with Russia propping up the Al-Assad government with limited military assistance and intervention, and with Western/Arab nations supporting the collapse of the Al-Assad government by funding and arming opposition parties.
It has emerged that Israel racially segregates its maternity wards by race, with one Israeli Member of Parliament saying that this is done because “Arabs are my enemies and that’s why I don’t enjoy being next to them.”
Like many other racial segregation measures in Israel, the Jewish state has kept news of the segregated hospital wards secret until now—an incredible feat given that most Jews in that state will have had contact with the hospital system for decades.
According to a report in the Times of Israel, the revelations started with a report on Israeli Radio saying that hospitals have been separating Arab and Jewish mothers in maternity wards “when the mothers request it.”
Then, a Knesset member, Bezalel Smotrich, took to Twitter to support the racial segregation measure.
“My wife is truly no racist, but after giving birth she wants to rest rather than have a hafla”—a mass feast often accompanied by music and dancing—“like the Arabs have after their births,” the Knesset member tweeted.
After his tweet received negative replies, Smotrich went a step further, writing: “It’s natural that my wife wouldn’t want to lie down [in a bed] next to a woman who just gave birth to a baby who might want to murder her baby twenty years from now.”
He then added that “Arabs are my enemies and that’s why I don’t enjoy being next to them.”
His wife, Revital, later told Israel’s Channel 10 that she had “kicked an Arab obstetrician out of the [delivery] room. I want Jewish hands to touch my baby, and I wasn’t comfortable lying in the same room with an Arab woman.”
“I refuse to have an Arab midwife, because for me giving birth is a Jewish and pure moment,” she said.
Smotrich in the Knesset.
The resultant publicity has forced the Israeli Health Ministry to quickly back down from its segregation policy, and issue a statement saying that such a practice was “not allowed.”
Despite the official condemnation, the reality remains that there has been—and most likely still is—such segregation “upon request.”
The real issue is, once again, not if Jews in Israel want to be segregated from Palestinians or not. From their point of view, there are possibly good reasons for doing so in order to preserve their identity and culture.
However, it is when Jewish activists in Israel and other nations start agitating against any Europeans who dare to suggest that they also have a right to protect their identity, that the problem comes in.
For, if Europeans dare to suggest that they should have a right to a European state—in the same way that Jews have the right to a Jewish state—then these same Jews are the first to attack them as being “Nazis” and “haters.”
Proof of this can be seen in the complete silence by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations about Smotrich and his wife’s public comments. Any European politician who had dared say anything similar—about non-Europeans or Jews, for example—would immediately have been condemned by the ADL and lambasted in the Jewish-dominated media in the West.
But, as usual, that media remains silent on outbursts by Jews and racial segregation measures in Israel.
There always seems to be one rule for Jews, and another rule for Europeans.
Israel’s Education Ministry has formally banned a book about an interracial affair between a Jew and a Gentile because, the Jewish state’s government says, the book “threatens Jewish identity” and does not deal with the “significance of miscegenation” between “Jews and non-Jews.”
Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett, and the book banned for promoting “miscegenation” in Israel.
At the same time, the organized Jewish lobby in America and Europe —which fanatically supports Israel—demands of Europeans that they accept miscegenation and mixed marriages in order not to be “racist.”
According to an article in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper, titled “Israel Bans Novel on Arab-Jewish Romance From Schools for ‘Threatening Jewish Identity‘” (December 31, 2015), Israel’s Education Ministry has “disqualified a novel (called “Gader Haya,” or “Borderlife”) that describes a love story between an Israeli woman and a Palestinian man from use by high schools around the country.”
An official statement released by the ministry said that the book had been banned from schools because of the “need to maintain the identity and the heritage of students in every sector,” and that “intimate relations between Jews and non-Jews threatens our separate identity.”
The Education Ministry added that “young people of adolescent age don’t have the systemic view that includes considerations involving maintaining the national-ethnic identity of the people and the significance of miscegenation.”
The book tells the story of Liat, an Israeli translator, and Hilmi, a Palestinian artist, who meet and fall in love in New York, until they part ways for her to return to Tel Aviv and he to the West Bank city of Ramallah, where Israel’s racial segregation laws force them apart.
The decision to ban the book was endorsed by Education Minister Naftali Bennett’s office, which issued a statement saying “The minister backs the decision made by the professionals.”
In a separate article, Haaretz columnist Alon Idan frankly admitted that the reason why the book was banned was so that Israel could “maintain purity of blood.”
Alon said that the decision meant simply that “Jews and Arabs are forbidden to have sex with one another; Jews and Arabs are forbidden to love one another; Jews and Arabs are forbidden to marry one another; Jews and Arabs are forbidden to have families with one another; Jews and Arabs are forbidden to live together.”
No one with any clear-thinking mind would dispute the right of Jews to maintain their identity in their own country.
However, the organized Jewish lobby in America and Europe—which is one of Israel’s strongest supporters—demands of Europeans that they adopt exactly the opposite policy to that which they support in the Jewish state.
The ADL, for example, which describes itself as “the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice, and bigotry,” has an entire section of its website devoted to boasting about the Jewish role in dismantling anti-miscegenation and anti-mixed marriage laws in America.
For example, an ADL press release from March 2015, dealing with the promotion of homosexual marriage (something else which is illegal in Israel), titled “ADL Urges Supreme Court to Overturn State Marriage Bans” quotes Christopher Wolf, ADL Civil Rights Chair, as saying that “Marriage bans unconstitutionally enshrine one particular religious view of marriage into law.”
The ADL goes on to quote Deborah M. Lauter, ADL Civil Rights Director, as saying that “Discriminatory laws targeting disadvantaged groups have long been justified by religious and moral disapproval, but time and time again, the Supreme Court has rejected these arguments. The Court needs only to look at its decisions ending slavery, segregation, interracial-marriage bans, and laws restricting women’s roles in public life to reach the right conclusion.”
The ADL was joined in this demand by The American Jewish Committee; Bend the Arc — A Jewish Partnership for Justice; The Central Conference of American Rabbis and the Women of Reform Judaism; Global Justice Institute; Hadassah — The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc.; Jewish Social Policy Action Network (JSPAN); Keshet; The National Council of Jewish Women; Nehirim; Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and Jewish Reconstructionist Communities; Society for Humanistic Judaism; T’ruah: Rabbis for Human Rights-North America; and Women’s League for Conservative Judaism.
In addition, the ADL was joined by a host of Christian, Asian, and Sikh organizations—but none of them were being hypocritical about their public stance, unlike the Israel-supporting Jewish groups.
The ADL has a special section of its website devoted to explaining to its supporters how to defend Israel. Titled “Israel: A Guide for Activists,” the ADL page provides detailed instructions on every aspect of the Jewish state, and how to answer accusations made against it.
In addition, the ADL—and all the other organized Jewish organizations—set up formal visits to Israel, engage in lobbying on behalf of the Jewish state, and ensure that their controlled media never reports negatively on Jewish political manipulations or their control of Western governments.
It is clear that the Jews know and understand perfectly the principles of race and the need to preserve racial homogeneity in order to maintain Jewish cultural identity.
In Israel, this understanding takes practical effect through the banning of mixed marriages, the outlawing of non-Jewish immigration, racial segregation in schools and living areas, and their ultimate goal—a separate Jews-only state.
Yet, in America, Europe, and anywhere else where there are large numbers of Europeans, the Israel-supporting Jewish lobby actively promotes policies which are the diametric opposite to the policies which their state enforces.
The facts are inescapable: the Jewish lobby knows perfectly well that miscegenation and mixed marriages will lead to the destruction of Jewish identity and the Jewish nation-state.
They therefore also know that promoting miscegenation and mixed marriages among non-Jews will lead to the destruction of European identity, and the destruction of European nation-states.
This “hypocrisy” is too obvious to be an accident: it can only be the result of a conscious, deliberate decision, aimed at bringing about the destruction of non-Jews.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 22 March 2016 19:02.
Lots of White faces at Bernie rally.
TOO, Sam Dickson, “Black and Hispanic Democrats versus White, Liberal Democrats,” 22 March 2016: With all the attention on Donald Trump, there has been little discussion of the astonishing rift between Black and Hispanic Democrats on one hand and White liberal Democrats on the other.
Hillary Clinton has shut Bernie Sanders out of the Black and Brown voters. She is their candidate. She is catering to them to an astonishing degree. She has endorsed all the fantasies and lies about White cops killing Black males. She has hauled the mother of Travon Martin around, putting her on the stage to endorse her candidacy, and talking about how Lil’ Travon was murdered by George Zimmerman but there was no justice. She has extolled the Gentle Giant.
She made statements about a breaking story about three Black coeds who claimed they were attacked by Whites on a bus who called them “nigger.” When a surveillance video from the bus revealed that the whole story was concocted, Hillary refused to retract her statements or to apologize for joining in false accusations against innocent people.
There is no limit in race-betrayal that Clinton will not go to.
Clinton is now virtually the captive of the Blacks and Browns. They cast about half the votes in the Democratic Party. They are the ones who have given her the nomination.
The White Democrats — even the wimmin — have deserted her and flocked to Sanders in droves.
Sanders has gotten nowhere in his efforts to chip non-White voters away from Clinton.
He is the candidate of the White wing of the Democratic Party.
What does this mean for White Nationalists like us who are thinking in long range terms (like Jews) instead of next weeks primary vote?
A lot.
For many years I have predicted that there would come a point at which White liberals would realize that their Black and Brown friends don’t have the slightest interest in issues that excite White liberals: gay rights, environmentalism, funding for the arts, conservation, public parks.
No. The Blacks and the Browns are only interested in “The Gimme.”
And increasingly Blacks and Browns will control and dominate the Democratic Party. Already, they are sending the White liberal Democrats to the back of the bus.
The alliance between White liberals and the racist minorities is breaking up. They are splitting.
Add in the fact that there are a lot of White liberals at the local level who have caught on that the Jews are running their own racist ethnostate and that their posturings about fighting racism and their deep, deep concern about the plight of Blacks and the need for open borders are utterly insincere.
At some point our White liberal racial brothers and sisters are going to be up for grabs.
The shizoid nature of Democratic voter behavior along racial lines shows that this is coming.
How can we reach out to them and help raise the consciousness?
The Turkish government has started to halt the flood of invaders sailing to the Greek islands in terms of its “deal” with the European Union—proving that they could have done it all along and merely used the nonwhite invasion to blackmail Europe.
On Friday, March 18, Turkish police intercepted 3,000 invaders attempting to cross on land and sea in a major operation involving coast guard and helicopters, as the “deal” was being struck in Brussels.
Even so, some 1,498 invaders were still able to land on the Greek islands from March 18 to March 19, Greek “crisis teams” on Lesbos reported. According to the Greek coast guard, the increase is likely related to the fact that Turkey has undertaken to crack down on the invaders.
In terms of the deal, after midnight on Saturday, March 19, any invader who lands on the islands will no longer be able to catch ferries to Athens, but will be immediately “interviewed” by asylum officials or judges at new detention camps.
Presumably these “interviews” will decide which of the invaders are “genuine” refugees or not—even though it is abundantly clear that none are genuine, as they are all leaving a safe third country—Turkey—and are thus not fleeing for their lives at all.
In fact, there are approximately three million “refugees” living peacefully in Turkey, a fact which completely undermines the claim that they are “fleeing to Europe in fear of their lives.”
From April 4, deportations to Turkey are set to begin with EU officials expressing the hope that the process will take no more than a few days to complete.
Those who appeal against their deportations will be brought before Greek judges in “instant court” sessions in a €20 million per month project involving 4,000 staff—funded by the EU.
The EU-Turkey “deal” will mean that Turkey gets a €6 billion bribe to stop the invasion, while at the same time the EU has agreed to directly transfer some 72,000 “Syrian” invaders directly to the European mainland from Turkey. This exchange will only be stopped if the numbers of invaders deported to Turkey exceed that figure.
In return, Turkey’s 75-million strong population will be granted visa-free access to Europe from June 2015, as long as that country introduces “forgery-proof passports” in time.
In addition, the “deal” provides for the speeding up of negotiations to let Turkey join the EU so that they aim to be finalized before the end of June. Cyprus—still in a dispute with Turkey over the occupation of the northern part of that country—will be denied the right to veto Turkish EU membership.
Meanwhile, the Bulgarian army has been stationed along that country’s border with Macedonia in an attempt to halt the infiltration of the thousands of nonwhites trapped in Greece after most of the Balkan nations unilaterally closed their borders to all but those who could “prove” that they were “Syrians” (fake passports notwithstanding).
There are an estimated 46,000 such invaders waiting on the Greek–Macedonian border, and about 12,000 piled up at the border village of Idomeni.
Africans posing as refugees at Idomeni
Black Africans pretending to be refugees wait at the border between Macedonia and Greece, looking for an opportunity to break through the fence and join the parasitic hordes already living off the white taxpayers of western Europe.
Republican leaders talk about how to deal with Trump (apparently, these are not actors):
First of all, my (DanielS) concerns are primarily metapolitical in nature, where political at all. I have never had faith in the dog and pony show of politics to look after our E.G.I.
Nevertheless, there are people who care about European/White E.G.I. who think it is important for strategic reasons to get White people en mass behind Trump.
Again, it won’t be this White man who cares, I have never liked Trump and don’t trust his values. A businessman is, by training, Manichean: truth and justice is not his objective, defeating others is; and in that game that he plays, changing the rules, if necessary to win, is what he will do.
Cyberneticists have famously observed that the engineer and the scientist by contrast, is focused on Augustinian devils - natural devils.
Perhaps that focus makes a scientist such as MacDonald gullible to the tactics and naive to the motives of a businessman like Trump.
However, in service of squaring things-off, so that we can have an accurate dialectic going on here, in order to arrive at what is more the case, rather than arguing against cardboard figures, lets try to render some of MacDonald’s best arguments as to why Trump is someone for Whites to get behind.
MacDonald’s arguments as I understand them:
1) Because he is independently wealthy, he can flout the PC norms that have hog-tied Whites and address the true and important concerns of what has been the implicit base in support of the Republican Party - White people.
- That candor to move the Overton window is opposed to the concerns of people in the clip; and the Jews who have policed White ethnocentric dissent with iron PC rule.
2) He will either a) take that implicit White base, tarry with its interests at least to some extent, gain its support; thus owe some genuine regard for its concerns for a change through its Republican auspices. Or b) Destroy the GOP (which the men in the video would hate).
Plan b is not a bad option according to MacDonald and to most White people in the know - the Republican Party has looked like us but has shown White people no loyalty. Quite the opposite, it has been every bit as complicit in our demise as the Democrats.
Bring on the grassroots of ethnocentric Whites to form a third party; and if he will, let Trump set it in motion, MacDonald says.
That is what Whites have always needed, an independently wealthy White man who will actually put his money behind Whites the way Jews put their wealth behind their interests.
3) If it were not for Trump, issues of the American border and immigration would not even have been mentioned by the Republican Presidential Candidates. Trump forced that issue upon Cruz, Rubio et al.
Trump brought that critical issue into White American consciousness and legitimized it despite the masters of discourse having de-legitimized discourse of its concern since 1965.
That is also crucial, according to MacDonald, since it will force people to pay more attention to who is behind mass non-White migration to America. KM adds, there is no question that it was Jewish interests that have done this; and once Whites begin to understand that, they will see that Jewish interests have had nefarious aims - that the results for White E.G.I have been and will be deadly.
4) Though KM and Duke do not emphasize the corporate complicity, they do acknowledge that it is working Whites who suffer the most from these immigration policies, from unskilled labor to H1B migrants.
- Trump has not only explicitly called for deportation and the building of a fence to keep out unskilled migrants
5) Trump’s destruction of Jeb Bush, Rubio and Cruz means the destruction not only of politics as usual for the Republican Party, as these are the people that they wanted to nominate - but also of the Neo-Con agenda which lies deeper behind them.
In fact, William Crystal threatened to start a third party if Trump got the nomination.
MacDonald adds that the Neo-Con agenda is strictly Jewish. It has nothing to do with White interests and has been a disaster or White interests.
Therefore, MacDonald says, “so be it.” Let the White outrage begin if their votes are treated as if they don’t matter; let it be known who runs the Republican Party - Jewish Neo Cons and Corporate interests - let it be destroyed and a new third party that takes the side of Whites be born instead.
6) Trump is the best option also because he has the best chance for White interests against Hillary Clinton - if she wins that is a disaster because she is the quintessential neo-liberal, neo-con dream all in one: completely beholden to the worst domestically and foreign - of right wing economic and military objectives and PC cultural agendas.
7) It is important to get behind Trump now because if it takes another 8 - 12 years for someone like him to come along it might be too late for Whites to wield voting power enough to sway the political direction to their interests.
The election process is currently underway in Ireland and the so called “nationalist” political party Sinn Féin is out campaigning and drumming up votes.
The insane anti-White duplicity of this party can best be demonstrated by looking at their support for the Palestinians. On the one hand they show 100% support for this group and their right to a homeland.
Sinn Féin rally
But on the other hand they have no problem selling out the indigenous White Irish peoples homeland as long as it gets them some votes (the secondary consideration) and keeps them inline with the anti-White narrative (the primary consideration). Never mix the two up. Too many times we hear people saying “it’s all about the votes”. Nope, it’s a small part about the votes and a LARGE part about turning White countries non-White in the name of “diversity”.
As they say, a picture speaks 1000 words and here is Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams out posing for votes.
Let’s not forget that prominent members of this group were actively involved in the violent struggle against the British. But yet today they are the ones out advocating a “diverse” Ireland made up of “new Irish”.
Edmund
Anti-White madness like this only starts to make sense once you factor in the White geNOcide
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 01 February 2016 17:00.
Public opinion about supposedly ‘vulnerable’ Islamist men on an international level has become so ‘toxic’ that the Guardian no longer wants to offer up its comments section as a vehicle through which people all around the world can say things that the Guardian editors and journalists don’t agree with.
Certain subjects – race, immigration and Islam in particular – attract an unacceptable level of toxic commentary, believes Mary Hamilton, our executive editor, audience. “The overwhelming majority of these comments tend towards racism, abuse of vulnerable subjects, author abuse and trolling, and the resulting conversations below the line bring very little value but cause consternation and concern among both our readers and our journalists,” she said last week.
As a result, it had been decided that comments would not be opened on pieces on those three topics unless the moderators knew they had the capacity to support the conversation and that they believed a positive debate was possible.
The policy would be worldwide, applying to our UK, US and Australia offices, as the issues were global. And, where they were open, it was likely that threads would close sooner than the typical three-day window.
[...]
This was not a retreat from commenting as a whole, she said; it was an acknowledgement, however, that some conversations had become toxic at an international level – “a change in mainstream public opinion and language that we do not wish to see reflected or supported on the site”.
[...]
Totally exploitable.
This is almost like a return to the 1970s, except with a massively expanded infrastructure for communication, which results in black propaganda and grey propaganda being pushed by all sides of the political spectrum until one side finally cries out in pain and shuts everything down.
The difference now is that if the Guardian staff refuse to facilitate these conversations because they find it to be too painful, it won’t make them go away, it just means that these conversations will be shifted to other locations which are not under the watch of people in their political camp.
One thing that social democrats have never been able to understand is how to win at Information Operations (IO). They had forgotten that some audiences are more sophisticated than others, and that in a completely globalised communication environment in which the internet ‘remembers everything’, their attempts to fabricate a false reality to support their political positions in different temporal and geographical contexts will always be exposed. There will always be some commenter who will ask “Why did they say this thing here, but then this other thing over here? It’s contradictory! It makes no sense at all!”
For example, if a news organisation, such as perhaps the Guardian, or the Huffington Post, writes articles in its North America edition that try to induce feelings of guilt and paralysis among the Americans of European descent by taking the position that the Pilgrims who landed in North America on the Mayflower were actually a collection of religious fundamentalists who ended up carrying out genocide and were subsequently hated and reviled by the Amerindians, then that is an anti-Pilgrim line they can take. It’s based on reality so a person could indeed say it. But they would have to be consistent about it.
A problem emerges for that newspaper if it should happen to mysteriously become pro-Pilgrim in a Middle East and North African context, where the Islamist reactionary ‘refugees’ who are fleeing from the Middle East and North Africa to find ‘a new life’ in Europe, are presented as being beyond reproach because of their similarity to the American Pilgrims. American Pilgrims who are suddenly recast as noble heroes fleeing from a supposedly repressive Europe to find ‘a new life’ in the Americas. ‘Pilgrims fleeing repression’ is also a narrative based on reality. But its moral content and implied policy prescriptions are 180 degrees opposite to that of the aforementioned anti-Pilgrim narrative.
It’s 2016, social democrats. If you constantly contradict yourselves like that, then it becomes possible to find the key which is held in common between the different kinds of propaganda you are creating, by simply comparing them to each other. That’s something which is pretty trivial to do in the era of digital media. So that happened, and will continue to happen.
I would say to everyone who has been struggling against social democrats, that this latest move to restrict speech which is being carried out by the Guardian should be regarded as a victory of sorts over the Guardian. They are in fact conceding that the people in the various ethno-nationalist camps—globally—have a level of influence over mainstream public opinion which has been able to move the mainstream out of lockstep with social democrats.
Counterpropaganda involves shining a light in the darkness, and the Guardian’s desire to retreat into the darkness when hit with that light only further reveals the perniciousness of their propaganda campaign, and also its fundamental weakness.
