[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.
Individuals can declare themselves bankrupt but it’s not so easy for nations. Argentina defaulted in 2001 and she is still suffering the consequences. The UK national debt currently stands at £1.8 trillion, which is almost as much as our GDP. The annual cost of this debt is £48 billion.
Few modern states earn more than they spend. The exceptions are oil-rich states with small populations, like Norway or Qatar. Most states spend more than they earn, particularly on fighting wars. They cover the deficit by borrowing from the banks and by selling bonds. This is known as the National Debt. Hilaire Belloc explained it in ‘Economics for Helen’:
“When these national loans began the Government honestly intended to pay back what they had borrowed. But the method was so fatally easy that as time went on, and the debt piled up and up until there could be no question of repaying it all: all the State could do was to pay the interest out of taxation. It remained indebted to private rich men for the principle, that is the whole original sum, and meanwhile, through further wars, this hold of the rich men upon all the rest of the community perpetually increased.”
Countries with vast natural resources and reserves of gold and foreign currencies, like the United States, can function with massive debts because the banks and bondholders trust them. But countries with no collateral can only borrow more money, for as long as they can.
When countries run out of credit they are reduced to starvation, unless some help is extended. Germany’s national debt was partly written off at the Lausanne Conference in 1932 and again at the London Conference in 1953. The Allies decided that it made more sense to get Germany back on her feet. At least, that way they would get some of their money back. It worked, and Germany cleared her debts as her economy recovered.
In 2000 a Canadian proposal for a debt moratorium was rejected by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but eventually, all national debts will have to be rescheduled, reduced or abolished. Creditors, including private bondholders, insurance companies and pension fund managers, will cling to the present system because they want their money back, but ultimately it’s unsustainable.
My parents came from widely diverse backgrounds, for my Father was a motor car tester, and my Mother was Governess to the children of a very senior army officer, I was born in the summer of 1924, and had a very reasonable education, initially at a state school, and then at ten years of age, to a well respected Grammar School in the Home Counties. At the age of 14, when I was on my way home from School, I came across a poorly dressed old man wheeling a pram on which he had fixed a wind-up gramophone and was playing a recording of a speech by Sir Oswald Mosley, who was addressing his audience as “my Blackshirt brothers”. I listened intently until the record was finished, and then thanked the old man, giving him a penny from my pocket. Arriving home, I explained to my Father what I had heard, and he told me how on one occasion he had gone up to London to make trouble at a Mosley meeting, but he had been so impressed that he had finished up cheering his support. I remember that. Before I was old enough to follow my Father’s example, the war was upon us. I was at University, and Sir Oswald and Lady Mosley were in prison under law 18B, together with scores of his senior officers. In fact, I never wore a black shirt myself.
After the war, they were all discharged from prison without being charged, and ‘Union Movement’ was formed. The new party had headquarters at an address in London and produced a newspaper called ‘Action’ with the front emblazoned with the Blackshirt emblem, a circle crossed by one flash, not two as in SS.
By this time I was making regular visits to London on business and would call into the London Office, and chat at length with Mr Raven Thomson, who was Editor of the newspaper. I used to make a contribution now and then to ‘Action’ and kept in touch. We had a group called ‘Friends of Union Movement’, and every now and again would attend a dinner in London, with ‘OM’ as speaker. He always spoke well, and his following was intensely loyal.
Of course, prompted by the Jewish lobby, things were made very difficult. We were obliged to drop ‘The European Salute’, and then the blackshirt emblem. The Home Office declared that the wearing of a black shirt constituted a uniform, and in spite of the fact that OM insisted that wearing the black shirt was merely to identify Party members during a commotion it was banned.
Raven Thomson died from the long-term effects of his brutal treatment during his stay in prison, and OM went to live in Orsay, France.
All these people have left their mark, and although several splinter movements have started up to maintain the creed, none have really been able to rally the public as OM was able to do.
This is not necessarily to do with their inadequacies, but the result of well organised, and Jewish funded publicity blocks that have prevented both reporting and any publicity leaking out, however small.
Once the administration was changed in Germany after the war, OM adopted a slogan “Europe a Nation”, which was his frequent cry. Were he to be here in 2016, he would have been aghast to note that the Jewish lobby is once again running things over there.
When OM retired into France he went there on the basis that eventually he would be called. He never was of course, which is a tragedy, for he would have been a brilliant statesman.
Nevertheless, he always kept his ear to the ground and clearly read the UK papers. This is made clear when some reporter named Peterborough reported on a rowdy meeting in Oxford, that the stewards had dealt with the rowdies as savagely as OM had done at his Olympia meeting. His reply is appended below.
“Sir, a note by Peterborough (May 14th) appears to compare the actions of stewards in defending my meeting at Olympia from attack, with the action of those recently attacking someone else’s meeting at Oxford. The difference is surely clear to any impartial mind.
Facts regarding Olympia are also on public record in contemporary Press reports and are now worth recalling. The attack on a perfectly legal meeting was openly organised and publicised for three weeks in advance, without any intervention of authority to prevent a flagrant breach of the law.
The assault of armed roughs was defeated by our young men who were accused of using their fists too vigorously. Soon after the occasion (the largest public meeting ever held in Britain) at Earls Court Exhibition Hall, was conducted in perfect order. Previously free speech had been systematically denied to anyone unpopular with Communism or the anarchic left. e.g. Sir Winston Churchill’s election meeting in Dundee when he was just out of hospital, reported in the Times under the heading “Mr Churchill shouted down.”
Authority was supine during a period when free speech ceased to exist. This was the origin of the Blackshirt movement, which opponents described as my “private army”. The means to defend ourselves were subsequently removed by special act of Parliament.
It then became more than ever, the duty of Government itself to maintain order, and in this duty, then and now, it conspicuously fails. In agreeing that no man should be allowed a private army, I suggest that Britain needs a Government with the will to maintain order which includes free speech for all. ”
When nostalgic Brexiteers look back to the ‘good old days’, the summers were warmer, the food was tastier, and the dogs and people were friendlier. They have convinced themselves that it was a Golden Age before we joined the old Common Market in 1973. They have forgotten about the strikes and confrontations, the poor productivity, and the years of stagnation.
Some of them believe that the British Empire was destroyed by conspiracies but history tells a different story. When the Japanese won their war with Russia in 1905 they showed that the European powers were vulnerable, and when they took Singapore from Britain in 1942 they proved their point to the subject peoples of Asia and Africa. We fought colonial wars in Malaya, Kenya, Aden, and Cyprus but there was no stopping “The Wind of Change.” Within thirty years of WW2, all that was left of the Empire was a few outposts like Gibraltar and the Falklands.
Those of us born in the last days of the British Empire are proud of our achievements. We built roads, railways and bridges all over the world and bequeathing a civil service, a judiciary, and a parliamentary system to our colonial subjects. The British Empire was a force for civilisation and progress, but it was also the source of cheap food that damaged our agriculture, the producer of cheap cotton goods that destroyed our textiles industry, and the supplier of immigrants that undercut our wages and conditions. We discovered the hard way that commerce overrules sovereignty and that people follow goods across borders. In the days of Empire we recruited workers from the West Indies; as members of the EU we signed up to its rules and conditions, and if we are swallowed up by the United States we will import contaminated food and commit our troops to ‘perpetual war’.
Capitalism has been global since the days of the East India Company. We fought the Chinese to force them to buy our opium; we fought the Afrikaners for their gold and diamonds, and we fought the Turks to steal the Arabian oilfields. But the days of trade enforced by bayonets are over. We belong to NATO and our armed forces are under the command of General Curtiss Scaparroti, Supreme Allied Commander Europe. We are members of the United Nations and subject to the International Court of Human Rights. We belong to the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. If we leave the EU we will operate under the World Trade Organisation. And the majority of our immigrants come from outside the EU, mainly from Africa and Asia.
We pro-Europeans believe in beneficial access to markets, incoming investment, and peace in Northern Ireland. And, realising that the Empire has gone, we see our future in terms of European co-operation. We also know that wages are far too low and that immigration can only be controlled by international agreement.
These arguments have been thoroughly debated but the decision to leave the EU was largely emotional. Abstract ideas of ‘sovereignty’ were more important than economics. In fact, some on the Brexiters are happy to accept a lower standard of living for the illusion of sovereignty.
As for immigration, the Brexiteers don’t regard West Indians, Africans and Asians as foreigners, after all, they play cricket and most of them speak English. They are happy to admit our former colonial subjects but they are determined to stop the Poles.
Neither side has a monopoly on patriotism but some people are fond of shouting “traitor” at the opposition. That’s unfair because we all want the best for our country. People are not traitors because they have a different opinion, and shouting abuse at foreigners does not make one a patriot. We are entering uncharted waters and time alone will tell who is right and who is wrong.
The BBC
John Reith 1889-1971 photo credit BBC.
The British Broadcasting Corporation is a state-owned media empire that was founded by the brilliant Scottish engineer and radio pioneer John Reith in 1922. His original intention was for the service to be educational as well as entertaining. Left-wingers accuse it of being right-wing and right-wingers accuse it of being left- wing. The truth is that it supports the establishment, not necessarily the government of the day but the overriding liberal-capitalists consensus.
[MR editorial note: Nationalists being against corrupt establishment is indicative of what we are calling “Left Nationalism”]
The Corporation is funded by an annual ‘licence fee’ of £147.00. If you watch TV in the UK you must pay the licence fee, even if you are watching a foreign station. This unfair levy is the main source of the BBC’s massive income of nearly five billion pounds. It wastes this money on presenters like Chris Evans who earned £2.2 million last year, Gary Lineker who earned £1,7 million, and Graham Norton who got £850,000. The BBC also has legions of journalists, researchers, and photographers who fly around the world gathering news stories. And it spends a fortune on legal fees and settlements.
The British government is struggling to find money for the National Health Service, defence, education, and almost everything else. But we allow the bloated BBC to waste billions of pounds on broadcasters and bureaucrats. We should stop this madness by selling it off; the TV and radio stations, the buildings, the news service, the sports franchises, and everything else.
And we should not fall for the myths of impartiality and quality surrounding the Corporation. It’s forever congratulating itself on its high standards, but it’s as biased as any other state-owned propaganda outlet, and most of its TV and radio programs are made by independent production companies.
The licence fee should be abolished and the slimmed-down company should be paid for by adverting revenue, with any profits going to the state. Presenters should be paid an industrial wage and the service should be returned to John Reith’s founding principles. The current BBC is a money-gobbling monster that’s out of control. We should sack the lot of them and start again.
Post-Brexit Policies
When we leave the EU the political parties will no longer be able to blame everything on Europe, they will be forced to address our problems. As I write, they are holding their annual conferences and making their promises for the future.
Theresa May is clinging to her Chequers plan despite the fact that it has been rejected by the EU and most of her party. The Tories have abandoned austerity and are promising to build more social housing and increase public spending. They have also promised to reduce corporation tax so an increase in income tax is inevitable.
Jeremy Corbyn expects to win the next general election and he has promised to renationalise the railways, the Royal Mail, and the water companies. His chancellor, John MacDonald has revived the manifesto of the Italian Social Republic to give shares and seats on the board of companies employing more than 250 workers. When Benito Mussolini introduced this policy it was overtaken by events.
Vince Cable pledged that the Lib Dems would lead the fight against Brexit but our ‘first past the post’ electoral system is rigged against them. They have 12 seats at Westminster but under proportional representation they would have more than 50.
Ukip and the various parties of the far-right will lose most of their reasons for living when we quit Europe. But immigration will still be with us because most of them come from outside of the EU. The latest ONS figures show that in the last year 127,000 EU citizens came to the UK and 179,000 from the rest of the world. In fact, if we sign trade deals with China and India we will probably admit more of them.
All of the parties are promising to increase defence spending, but if our economy shrinks we will have even less money to spend. We may have to stop pretending to be a world power and deploy our armed forces for the defence of the UK, instead of getting involved in Afghanistan and the Middle East. That would mean more frigates and destroyers but we would not need two gigantic aircraft carriers and a fleet of nuclear submarines.
Education also needs sorting out. France and Germany provide free education from nursery to university and so should we. We must gear our educational system to provide the doctors, engineers and scientists that we need instead of relying on immigration.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 25 September 2018 14:32.
New observer, “Trump Commits America to Extended War in Syria, Reverses Withdrawal Policy”, 21 Sept 2018:
US President Donald Trump—in accordance with instructions from Israel—has reversed his previously declared policy of withdrawal from Syria and committed to an indefinite “military effort” in the country to remove Bashar al-Assad, the Washington Post has reported.
Trump, who “just five months ago said he wanted ‘to get out’ of Syria and bring U.S. troops home soon, has agreed to a new strategy that indefinitely extends the military effort there,” the newspaper reported.
There are already 2,200 US army personnel on the ground in Syria—a fact almost completely ignored by the controlled media, and now there are plans to increase this number and to look at other sanctions against the Syrian government, all in line with Israel’s demand that the Iranians be kicked out and Assad deposed.
“Although the military campaign against the Islamic State has been nearly completed, the administration has redefined its goals to include the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces from Syria,” the Washington Post continued, justifying the move as the “establishment of a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community.”
“The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year,” said James Jeffrey, a retired senior Foreign Service officer who last month was named Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “representative for Syria engagement.”
Jeffrey said U.S. forces are to remain in the country to ensure an Iranian departure and the “enduring defeat” of the Islamic State. “That means we are not in a hurry,” he said.
Asked whether Trump had signed off on what he called “a more active approach,” Jeffrey said, “I am confident the president is on board with this.” This is of course an understatement: Trump has slavishly followed Israel’s demands with regard to Syria from the very beginning, ordering bombing raids on Syria over non-existent “chemical attacks” and breaking the “nuclear deal” with Iran.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 22 September 2018 09:24.
Social Const….
Greg Johnson discusses his new book, “The White Nationalist Manifesto” with J.F. Gariepy.
I can recommend it only with caveat.
While he does lay out the case for Whites being genocided and recognizes the necessity for raising the perceived legitimacy and consciousness of the need for White Nationalism, he does not see the contradiction in his using social constructionism as an example of social theory antagonistic to that consciousness and practice.
He calls race being a social construct “an entirely bogus idea.” ...This is an expression of his middling (138) I.Q. He’s only smart enough to talk himself out of the eminent utility and truth of the concept.
Social Constructionism (proper) does not say that race, evolution and biological distinctions are not real. What it does, rather, is sensitize our attention to our social connection, indebtedness - which is true (not bogus) - consciousness of which provides for some agency and accountability (coherence and warrant too), at very least in determining how these things come to count.
You would not want to oppose this sensitization to social conscientiousness, agency and accountability (coherence and warrant) if you are looking to build consciousness and conscientiousness of White Nationalism.
Similarly, you would not want to be arguing against THE Left, as he does, given its general enculturation of union type organization, loyalty and compassion to the full group, including those on the margins, full group advocacy against elite and rank and file betrayal, if you want to raise consciousness and loyal adherents to White Nationalism.
Greg Johnson. Typical Right Winger ...with a lisp and a better than average I.Q., which is good, but maybe not good enough.
Seoul, South Korea (CNN) North Korea said it would close a key missile test facility in the presence of “international experts” and potentially destroy its primary nuclear complex if the United States agrees to corresponding measures, South Korean President Moon Jae-in announced in a joint press conference with Kim Jong Un Wednesday.
The two leaders made the announcement on the second day of a three-day summit, their third this year, as part of efforts with the United States to contain the threat of war on the Korean Peninsula.
Speaking to the media Wednesday after a brief signing ceremony, Kim and Moon vowed to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula once and for all, something they first committed to at their April summit.
“The world is going to see how this divided nation is going to bring about a new future on its own,” Kim said to applause from those gathered.
Moon and Kim teased a potential historic fourth meeting between the two leaders, this time in the South Korean capital. The signed agreement stated that Kim would travel to Seoul “as soon as possible,” something no North Korean leader has ever done. Kim’s father, Kim Jong Il, agreed to visit Seoul, but never followed through.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the Paekhwawon State Guesthouse in Pyongyang, North Korea, in this still frame taken from video taken September 19.
Both countries’ defense chiefs also signed a 17-page accord in which the two countries vowed to “cease all hostile acts against each other.”
“The era of no war has started,” said Moon, the first South Korean president to visit Pyongyang since 2007. “Today the North and South decided to remove all threats that can cause war from the entire Korean peninsula.”
The two countries also pledged to:
- Submit a joint bid to host the 2032 Summer Olympics.
- Create rail and road links between North and South within the next year.
- Stop military drills aimed at each other along the Military Demarcation Line, which divides the two countries, by November 1.
- Remove 11 guard posts in the demilitarized zone by the end of the year.
- Normalize the Kaesong Industrial complex and Kumgang tourism project as soon as the conditions allow.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 15 September 2018 06:29.
I’ve made love to tousands of women, and I’m doing a favor to ze ozer men by doing zat, because I am making zere women eager for sex; but I never make love to zem in ze ozer ‘ole, even when beautiful women want it, ask me to make love in ze ozer ‘ole, I never give it to zem in ze ozer ‘ole, even if zey want it in ze ozer ‘ole, so ze ozer men can ave ze anus ‘ole, can give it to zem in ze ozer ‘ole.
...Just when you thought JF Gariepy’s subgenius couldn’t be any more insufficient to the task:
...and beating the natives with sticks whenever they don’t work hard enough.
The kind of ruthless racial self-assertion that these Chinks engage in is world-beating. Whites can’t compete with it. Not now that we have sunk into the abyss of altruism.
As Baudelaire said: The world belongs to the one who doesn’t care. These Chinamen don’t care.
It wasn’t that long ago that Whites were as hardcore as these Chinamen. Ask yourself: is the world really a better place now that they’re not?
“Western countries need to study these Chinese techniques and adopt them.”
Not adopt them. Whites need to adapt ruthless ferocity to the ethnonationalist cause. In the two examples, one would be correct, and one would not.
Where Islamic incursions are quelled, that is correct.
Going to an African country, enslaving them, beating them and so on - when it is not sheer self defense - is not.
But of course, such bad advice (e.g., that we should be brutal slave masters over Africans) is typical of right wing reactionaries - to look for a foundation in natural fallacy, in sheer might makes right supremacism beyond the complexity of social praxis. ...and, of course, when praxis is ignored, then broader patterns of nemesis correction are in store for the hubris.
Social Const….
I’ve made love to tousands of women, and I’m doing a favor to ze ozer men by doing zat, because I am making zere women eager for sex; but I never make love to zem in ze ozer ‘ole, even when beautiful women want it, ask me to make love in ze ozer ‘ole, I never give it to zem in ze ozer ‘ole, even if zey want it in ze ozer ‘ole, so ze ozer men can ave ze anus ‘ole, can give it to zem in ze ozer ‘ole.
South Korean Presdient Moon Jae-in and Norht Korean leader Kim Jong Un after signing the agreement
