Majorityrights News > Category: White Nationalism

Vico: Contemporary, first major critic of Descartes, and seminal figure of social constructionism.

Adaptive traits certainly are socially constructed, if only for how they come to count for us.

It is an epistemologial blunder, of course, to try to founationalize our cause in “nature.”

First of all, because that would not follow in terms of describing what our nature does.

We seek to assimilate natural health and natural ways which are conducive to the well being of our people, but we do not simply let nature dictate the terms of our interests - for an obvious example, we do not simply let a virus destroy our people, but we develop means to deal with it, from vaccines, to quarantine, improved practices, sanitation and so on.

What that is describing even, is the fact that we are founded in our people’s interests first - not firstly in nature, the ‘interests’ of its viruses and so on. We look at nature as a guide and check points to health and non-health.

But to foundationalize our cause in nature is an epistemologial blunder.

The proper foundation is in Social Constructionism. In our people. That is the position of Praxis, following Aristotle’s corrective program. And then, very much in line with Aristotle again, we look to nature as guide-line check points of a healthy social system - e.g. placing value on optimality as opposed to maximization as a guide to homeostasis (racial autonomy).

A social constructionist perspective sensitizes us to our interactive connection, indebtedness and therefore indebtedness to our people, our forebears, to our corrective social systemic homeostasis at present and our responsibility to our future.

Next, we deploy the Hermeneutic turn when this positive view is cramping our breadth of perspective, individualism and imagination - we use it to gain more historical perspective, or novel ideas, concrete practical insights, or we become a bit more Platonic, say, in order to get a broader formal perspective on our systems, and develop working hypotheses. But the Hermeneutic turn is always duty bound to its circulation of inquiry, against Cartesian runaway, it will return to empirical verification wherever necessary or desired.

                    DanielS

READ MORE...

Big Brother, the boomer generation, is not watching, is not looking after your interests. He has disingenuously allowed the once more relevant fear of collectivism to be over-extended in his selfish interests at the expense of our group survival - not looking-after, but blocking “Little Brother,” viz., generation Xers corrective concern regarding atomization - the obvious vulnerability and destruction of our individuals and group, systemic survival thereupon.

And now these selfish pigs are aligning with right-wing Jewish interests - either naively or disingenuously - to bypass the ethnonational left corrective of gen-Xers, to instead mainline the parasite’s directives directly for an advanced stage take-over through generation internet bubble - instant experts, ‘knowing-it-all’ thanks to taking Big Brother’s (((directed vigilance))) against “The Left.” ...the YKW don’t want the gentiles to get any grass-roots union organizing ideas now that they have hegemony in all elite niches; they just want right-wingers who disingenuously or naively comply with thwarting those nascent Left Ethnonationalist challenges to them (let alone any coalition building of ethnonationalisms against them).

Little Brother’s Concerns are Not being looked-after.

... that is to say, necessary philosophical corrections of the Gen-Xers are not.

“The attempt to sideline positions such as this as on one side or the other of the “individual vs collective” divide is, itself, a most egregious Cartesian attack.”

The Hermeneuticist doesn’t side track issues by balancing concern for individual and collective (for example), in circulating corrective of Cartesian runaway, in this case of the boomer generations’ emphasis, which is now an over-emphasis on concerns over collectivization - but rather recognizes that the emphasis for our people now has to be more directed toward correcting our atomization as a people resulting from the rupture of ethnonationalist unionization and accountability thereof; which is destroying the very grounds even of what distinct individualism that European species affords.

                               
All American highschoolers of the 50s and 60s were assigned (((Kafka’s))) book, with a sci-fi nightmare culmination in eusocial take-over. They were also assigned Orwell’s 1984 story of the negative utopian horrors of collectivism, to where the YKW had taken accountability, that is to say, accounts requested, beyond all reason (producing the insanity of the Stasi and a Merkel).

It is apparent now, that the parasite is encouraging WN in right-wing reaction against the so called left (against the cartoon exaggerations of their international left as disingenuously lumped with proper White and non-Jewish left ethnonationalism); that right wing reactions that double down in the reaction against YKW abuse of left conceptualization of the social and group, are being encouraged, where not prescribed by them as the parasite merges with the host Whites to drive over the top and to ultimate dissolution those aspects which will not be totally merged and controlled by its Jewish agenda for thorough supremacy over the “gentiles.”

        The WN Right-Wing merges with and then reacts in accordance to the parasite’s directives and drives.

W. Barnett Pearce

Sexists, racists, and other classes of classifiers: Form and function of “...Ist” accusations

by Julia T. Wood and W. Barnett Pearce

An “. . . ist” accusation indicts an individual as a racist, sexist, or other “. . . ist” whose thoughts and/or acts discriminate on the basis of class membership. The self‐reflexively paradoxical structure of “. . . ist” accusations precludes refutation, but response is possible. Pragmatic and moral implications of alternative responses to “. . . ist” accusations are evaluated.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 66, 1980 - Issue 3. Brief provided by Taylor & Francis Online

In late 1989, I wrote to W. Barnett Pearce to discuss his work and how it might resolve problems that I was struggling with. Noting my struggles with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ - and having compassion! - he sent me this article, so on target and deft in the manner which it handled my concerns, that it demonstrated unequivocally that his was a discipline that I needed to be apprised of. Indeed, this article provided two of the most important clues for my WN advocacy. The first being that ‘race’ is (in an important regard) a matter of classification - at very least being treated as such by people who mattered, particularly by our foes, but also by our people, where they know what is good and necessary for them. Secondly, as the blurb above hints at, our antagonists can always shift its paradoxical structure to their anti-White agenda:

Viz., if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate based on race, sex, etc. I judge everyone on their individual merit”, then they will charge you with being disingenuous, willfully ignoring “the long history of discrimination, oppression and exploitation of these groups.”

But then, on the other hand, if you take the measure of saying, “ok, lets take that into account and use, say, affirmative action to help these groups into positions in which they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and a racist by definition.

Along with that article, Pearce sent me another one regarding The Problematic Practices of Feminism: An Interpretive Critical Analysis, Communications Quarterly, 1984, with Sharon M. Rossi

- which I found ironic, that being the exact name (same year as well) of the girlfriend of mine who drove me to psychic melt-down.

Anyway, the (very helpful) gist of that article, which I’ve noted several times before, is that within the context of liberal feminism, even a well intentioned man can always be put into the wrong:

You can always be treated as either a wimp or a pig, no matter what you do as a man.

If you try to treat her with deference, gentleness, help and respect, then you can be looked upon as a wimp and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her strength, agency and autonomy.

On the other hand, if you treat her as one of the boys, respecting her toughness and autonomy, then you can be looked upon as a pig, a male chauvinist pig, not respecting the special quality of her gender, but rather a male chauvinist pig, projecting the hegemony of your patriarchical world view over all and everyone.

Bill Ballie on the Imperial Mindset and Obscured Roots of Racialism and Early British Socialism in UK Nationalism

Nation Revisited # 144 October 2018

       
        The Imperial Mindset.

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.

READ MORE...

It was only after he began attending New College of Florida that Black began to question his own point of view. Previously, he had been home-schooled, but suddenly he was was exposed to people who didn’t share his views, including a few Jewish students who became friends. Black’s new friends invited him over for Shabbat dinner week after week. Gradually, he began to rethink his views.

NPR, “How A Rising Star Of White Nationalism Broke Free From The Movement”, 24 Sept 2018:

Derek Black was following in his father’s footsteps in the world of white nationalism until he had a change of heart.

As the son of a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Derek Black was once the heir apparent of the white nationalist movement.

Growing up, he made speeches, hosted a radio show and started the website KidsStormfront — which acted as a companion to Stormfront, the white nationalist website his father, Don Black, created.

“The fundamental belief that drove my dad, drove my parents and my family, over decades, was that race was the defining feature of humanity ... and that people were only happy if they could live in a society that was only this one biologically defined racial group,” Black says.

It was only after he began attending New College of Florida that Black began to question his own point of view. Previously, he had been home-schooled, but suddenly he was exposed to people who didn’t share his views, including a few Jewish students who became friends.

Black’s new friends invited him over for Shabbat dinner week after week. Gradually, he began to rethink his views. After much soul-searching, a 22-year-old Black wrote an article, published by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2013, renouncing white nationalism.

Derek Black’s “awakening” is the subject of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Eli Saslow’s new book, Rising Out Of Hatred. Saslow also interviewed Black’s father and other leaders in the white nationalist movement.

Interview Highlights

On the “rebranding” of white supremacy, led in part by Derek’s father, Don Black

Derek Black: My dad popularized the term “white nationalism” ... when he founded Stormfront and called it a white nationalist community, and he saw the distinction between white nationalism and white supremacy as being one that he didn’t want anything bad for anyone else — he just wanted everybody to be forcibly put in different spaces, and that that was not about superiority, it was just about the well-being of everybody. ... Looking back on it, that is totally irrational. How exactly do you think you’re going to forcibly separate everybody and that that’s not supremacy?

Eli Saslow: They believed America was founded as a white supremacist country. ... Their job was just to give people a space to say racist ideas in a more explicit, proud, confident way. ...

White nationalism, I think, effectively identifies a movement of people who are actively pursuing an end cause of separating races into different homelands. White supremacy, unfortunately, is something that’s much more endemic, and much more structured into what the country is.

On Black’s usage of white nationalist talking points in a campaign for the West Palm Beach County Republican Committee

Black: I knew from the time that I was a child that white nationalism, as long as it was not necessarily calling itself white nationalism, could win campaigns. So I did things like run little Republican county elections [to] demonstrate that I could win with the majority of the vote [using] white nationalist talking points in a very normal South Florida neighborhood.

I ran training sessions on how people could hone their message to try to get that audience, not freak people out and just tap into things like, “Don’t you think all these Spanish signs on the highway are making everything worse? And don’t you think political correctness is just not letting you talk about things that are real?” And getting people to agree on that would be the way forward.

On how President Obama’s election motivated white nationalists

Saslow: I think a lot of white nationalists saw President Obama’s election as a huge opportunity for their movement. Because what white nationalists have done, with dangerous effect, is play to this factually incorrect sense of grievance that exists, unfortunately, in large parts of white America.

Polls consistently show that 30 to 40 percent of white Americans believe that they experience more discrimination and more prejudice than people of color or than Jews, which is factually incorrect by every measure that we have, but by feeding that sense of grievance and by playing to these ideas of your country is being taken away, things are changing, this is turning into a place that you don’t recognize. We don’t need this kind of immigration. We don’t want these signs in Spanish — that has a huge effect with a lot of voters, and it’s what got Derek elected [he was unable to serve in office], and it’s what has gotten other politicians elected in our country as well.

On the responsibility Black feels for racially motivated violence that was inspired by the white nationalist beliefs he once espoused

I said things that tried to energize racist ideas and get people to be more explicit about it. And then people who listened to that and who believed it, some of them committed horrible, violent acts.

                ...That is a moral weight that is very difficult to reconcile.

Derek Black

Black: I spent so many years rationalizing that that was not us. We were not responsible for that. We were not advocating violence, so therefore when people committed violent acts who had all the same beliefs as us, that that was not us. That was the media portraying us in a way that attracted psychopaths, and that we were somehow not responsible for that because it was not clear how to tangibly connect what I was saying and what I was promoting to the actions that those people took.

And now I look back on it and I said things that tried to energize racist ideas and get people to be more explicit about it. And then people who listened to that and who believed it, some of them committed horrible, violent acts. And what is my culpability and responsibility for how these things went out into the world and they continue to bounce around in the world, and I can’t take them back? That is a moral weight that is very difficult to reconcile.

On how the actions of various students Black met at college helped him move away from his white nationalist beliefs

Saslow: In addition to being the story of Derek’s transformation, the book is also the story of the real courage shown by a lot of students on this campus who invested themselves in trying to affect profound change. And they did that in a lot of different ways. There was civil resistance on campus by a group of students who organized the school shutdown, and shut down the school, and sort of cast Derek out, and made it clear to him how awful, and how hateful, and how hurtful this ideology was.

And it was also students like Allison, eventually his girlfriend, who won his trust, built a relationship, but [who] also armored herself with the facts, and sort of like point by point went through and showed how this ideology is built on total misinformation.

And then there were also [Jewish] students like Matthew [Stevenson] and Moshe [Ash] who, in a remarkable act, invited Derek over week after week after week, not to build the case against him but to build their relationship, hoping that just by spending more and more time with them he would be able to begin seeing past the stereotypes to the people and to the humanity. I think it’s important to note that that did not happen quickly, and that they knew the full horror of a lot of the beliefs of this ideology and things that Derek had said.

Heidi Saman and Mooj Zadie produced and edited the audio of this interview. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the Web.

Related Story at Majorityrights:

The Dark Side of Self Actualization: Derek Black’s Reflexive Reversal on WN

... illustrating the inherent instability of the right.

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.

Despite making the case clearly, White Nationalists continue to drag their feet in the war of position which should have them heading to Left Nationalist positions against Jewish elitism (which is lording increased hegemony of at least seven power niches upon 2008) and its destruction of our own rank and file organization, unionization; only the YKW are moving there swiftly: having observed the Hispanic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scoff-up the popular swell gathering behind leftist positioning and its logical corollary of a critical stance against Jewry and its Zionism, a fire is being lit under their ass to a) continue to try to mute the platform of Majorityrights and b) to get “Hispanic” read (((Hispanic))), i.e., a Marrano Sephardic into office - New York’s Senate - under the guise of a Social Democrat. But masquerading as a socialist is not where her crypsis ends. She’s been engaged in literal goyim identity theft.

” It was, in the end, an arrest about nothing.” ....says (((The New York Times))).

New York Times, 6 Sept 2018:

ALBANY — It was, in the end, an arrest about nothing.

“An Arrest? An Affair? Keith Hernandez? Just Another Day in the Julia Salazar Campaign”

In the latest twist in the Zelig-like story of Julia Salazar — born-again democratic socialist, would-be immigrant and actual New York State Senate candidate in Brooklyn — news broke on Thursday of her 2011 arrest involving a dispute with the ex-wife of the former New York Mets first baseman Keith Hernandez.

The charge? Attempted identity theft.

The legal skirmish between the two women also included an assertion that Ms. Salazar, 27, had an affair with Mr. Hernandez, an allegation that both denied but which nonetheless propelled the already peculiar political story into the realm of media mania, with the candidate being pursued down a street outside City Hall on Thursday by question-barking reporters and a television camera crew.

Scrutiny of Julia Salazar’s history revealed inconsistencies that threaten to undermine her candidacy.

The newest revelation, first reported by DailyMail.com, about Ms. Salazar dates to 2010 when Kai Hernandez, then Mr. Hernandez’s estranged wife, filed a police report alleging that Ms. Salazar, then a 19-year-old attending Columbia University, had attempted “to gain access to my bank accounts by fraudulently pretending to be me” in a phone call to Ms. Hernandez’s bank.

At the time, Ms. Hernandez also accused Ms. Salazar of a range of other crimes, including stealing more than $10,000 in cash, nearly $1,000 in wine and $1,175 in Pottery Barn gift cards. Ms. Salazar had been a neighbor of Ms. Hernandez in Tequesta, Fla., and house-sat for her on several occasions, according to court documents.

The couple divorced in February 2011. The next month, Ms. Salazar was arrested on charges of criminal use of personal information, according to police reports.

Those charges, however, were dismissed and Ms. Salazar filed a lawsuit in 2013 against Ms. Hernandez alleging that her “false accusations” and “character assassination” had led to the humiliation of “being handcuffed, being fingerprinted and having to pose for mug shots.” An amended complaint, filed by Ms. Salazar’s lawyer, contained the suggestion of the affair, used as an example of Ms. Hernandez’s dishonesty and malfeasance toward his client. The complaint also noted that Ms. Salazar had known Mr. Hernandez since childhood.

“Julia considered Keith to be a father figure,” the complaint read.

After a four-year legal battle, the case resolved in Ms. Salazar’s favor last March with a $20,000 payment to her, according to her lawyer, Adam Hecht.

Ms. Salazar, who is running in the Democratic primary for a State Senate seat representing Brooklyn, claimed she was defamed by Kai Hernandez, the ex-wife of Keith Hernandez, a retired professional baseball player.

“Kai Hernandez’s bizarre and fraudulent attempts to defame and victimize Julia were recognized as baseless by the authorities, who declined to file charges, and this matter was resolved,” Mr. Hecht said in a statement. “Keith, Kai and Julia agree that there was no affair. We have no further comment on this.”

The revelations only added to the snowballing, stranger-than-fiction tale of Ms. Salazar, whose insurgent campaign has been buffeted by a series of articles outlining discrepancies in her personal biography. Among the inconsistencies are her campaign’s assertion that she was an immigrant from Colombia, though she was actually born and raised in the United States, and the implication that she had graduated from Columbia. (She conceded in an interview with The New York Times that while she had completed her course work, she had not graduated and did not intend to.)

Other curiosities in her biography include her embrace of left-wing politics (she is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America) after serving as the president of a conservative, right-to-life group in college. Raised in a Roman Catholic home, Ms. Salazar also once served as the Columbia chapter president of Christians United for Israel, before renouncing that group and converting to Judaism.

The involvement of Mr. Hernandez, now a Mets television broadcaster on SNY, also brought on a barrage of jokes about “Seinfeld,” the famous show about nothing, which the ballplayer made several appearances on. A spokeswoman for the network had no additional comment beyond the denial of any affair.

Ms. Salazar is challenging State Sen. M. M. Dilan to represent a North Brooklyn district. On Thursday, a week before the Sept. 13 primary, Ms. Salazar happened to be at City Hall for a photo shoot when she was engaged by the gaggle of reporters.

Asked why she filed the lawsuit, Ms. Salazar was succinct.

“Because false accusations were made against me,” she said.

If (((she said it))), must be true, according to the (((New York Times))).

DSA’s Julia Salazar Is Headed to the New York State Senate

The Intercept,, 15 Sept 2018:

As the final vote tally came across the TV screens above, Julia Salazar stared off in a daze at the sea of supporters who had crammed into a Bushwick bar Thursday night.

“Oh, my God,” Salazar said aloud to no one in particular as her campaign staff swarmed her. The 27-year-old democratic socialist candidate for state Senate had done what socialists do not typically do in American politics: She’d won, and won big, knocking off longtime incumbent state Sen. Martin Dilan.

Her 18-point victory over the four-term establishment incumbent was another watershed moment for the Democratic Socialists of America, whose rise in American politics in the Donald Trump era went into hyperdrive in June with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s shock victory.

“This is a victory for workers,” said a still-startled Salazar in her short victory speech. “This is a victory for the oppressed, for the marginalized across the state of New York.”

Weeks of intense scrutiny over Salazar’s personal life led to a string of news stories that accused her of misleading voters on her immigration status, Jewish heritage, and socio-economic background while growing up in Florida. The nonstop, high-profile scandals seemed to have had virtually no effect at the ballot box. If anything, her supporters rallied harder for her.

Julia Salazar (Wikipedia):

Julia Salazar (born December 31, 1990) is an American politician and activist. As a first-time candidate, she defeated incumbent New York State Senator Martin Malave Dilan to become the Democratic nominee for the 18th district in 2018.[1] She attracted national media attention for her views and statements and for being a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Early life and education

Salazar was born in Miami in 1990.[2][3] Her mother is an American citizen by birth, while her father was a naturalized citizen from Colombia.[4][5] Salazar was raised in a conservative home and at 18, registered as a Republican.[6] According to her campaign spokesperson, she registered with the Independence Party of New York in March 2010, mistakenly believing that it was meant she was an unaffiliated voter.[6]

Salazar attended Columbia University, but told the New York Times she did not earn a degree.[7] While at Columbia, Salazar was pro-life and a member of pro-Israel Christian student groups, but later became involved in campus Jewish life and tenant organizing.[3][8][9][10]

In 2011, a police report was filed by Kai Hernandez, former wife of New York Mets player Keith Hernandez,[11] accusing Salazar of attempting to gain access to Hernandez’s accounts at UBS by impersonating her over the phone;[12] Salazar was arrested, but the charges were dismissed when the state prosecutor said the voice identification was insufficient to pursue the case.[13] Kai Hernandez said that Salazar had house-sat for the couple in the past.[13] A court dispute between Hernandez and Salazar followed, in which Salazar sought damages for defamation and won settlement in her favor.[11]

After college, she became a grassroots organizer and campaigned extensively for legislation around police accountability.[3]

2018 New York State Senate campaign

In April 2018, Salazar announced her candidacy for the 18th district of the New York State Senate.[14] She ran against incumbent Senator Martin Malave Dilan in the Democratic primary, which took place on September 13, 2018.[14][15]

Her campaign gained significant attention after the primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York’s 14th congressional district.[15] She has been endorsed by Our Revolution,[16] the Democratic Socialists of America,[17] Cynthia Nixon,[18] and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.[3][19] Citizens Union initially endorsed Salazar but later revoked their endorsement, citing discrepancies in information she provided about her academic credentials and whether or not she had graduated college.[20]

On September 13, 2018 Salazar defeated Dilan for the Democratic nomination.[21] She advances to the general election on November 6, 2018, where she does not face a Republican opponent.[22][23]

Dispute over personal history

Over the course of her campaign, journalists, including Armin Rosen, highlighted what they said were contradictions in statements about her personal life and family background.[5][24][25][26]

Salazar described herself as an “immigrant from Colombia” in interviews published in August, including one with the The Intercept,[15] and in campaign speeches and literature.[27][28] In interviews as early as May 5th, she explained that she was born in Miami at a time when her parents were living part of the time in Colombia,[9][19][24] and made clear that she was an American citizen.[25][26][29][30]

Salazar has described herself as Jewish, and said her father was a Colombian Sephardic Jew descended from the medieval community that was expelled from Spain, and that she started to explore Judaism in college.[5][4][9][26] Rosen said these claims could not be verified,[5][9][24] and her brother said their father “never mentioned” any Sephardic heritage to him;[31] Salazar’s mother said that, although the family was Catholic on both sides, Julia’s father’s family had a Sephardic background, saying “that’s where her interest stems from. This is not something that was invented for the purposes of this campaign.”[7][9] Salazar said Rosen was engaging in “race science” and said he had “threatened to publish her mother’s personal information if she didn’t cooperate.”[27] In college, she studied Jewish texts and observed kosher food rules,[24][29][32] and was involved with the Jewish organization Hillel.[9]

Salazar has also described her family and upbringing as “poor” and “working class”.[9] Her brother said their family was “upper-middle class” while Salazar’s mother said the family was “a little bit of both worlds”;[33][34] Salazar had a trust fund of approximately $685,000 in her name, left by her father.[35]

In kindred (((concern))), shobbos goy Robert Stark is lending his platform for (((Joshua Zeidner))) to promote kosher leftism as well, viz., “socialist nationalism”, to try to head off our war of position:

Robert Stark talks to Joshua Zeidner about Bernie Sanders’ anti-Corporate Welfare Bill & The Tech Oligarchy

Related at Majorityrighs:

Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?

My Religiously Polite Mother Always Buys Courtly Assistance To NegotiateGoodOrganized Union Coalition

Mueller Documents: Manafort Conspired With Israeli Official To Influence Obama’s Ukraine Policy

Inquisitor, 14 Sept 2018:

According to the document, Manafort and an unnamed senior Israeli official conspired to tarnish the reputation of Yulia Tymoshenko by accusing her of anti-semitism.

In 2012, while working as a lobbyist for the pro-Russian government of Ukraine, Paul Manafort conspired with a senior Israeli official to pressure Barack Obama’s administration to disavow Ukraine’s then-opposition leader, Yulia Tymoshenko, Haaretz reports.

The Manafort-Israel-Russia connection appears on the pages of the plea deal signed between Donald Trump’s former campaign manager and Robert Mueller’s office. The following is stated in the document.

“Manafort sought to undermine United States support for Tymoshenko. He orchestrated a scheme to have, as he wrote in a contemporaneous communication, ‘Obama Jews’ put pressure on the [Obama] administration to disavow Tymoshenko.”

According to the document, Manafort and an unnamed senior Israeli official conspired to tarnish the reputation of Yulia Tymoshenko by accusing her of anti-semitism.

Manafort and the Israeli official’s strategy was simple. The two men authored a written statement, slandering Tymoshenko. Manafort then spread the story to U.S. media.

“I have someone putting it in the New York Post. Bada bing bada boom,” he wrote to one of his associates.

“The Jewish community will take this out on Obama on Election Day if he does nothing,” Manafort told an associate, according to the document, implying that his goal was to pressure Barack Obama’s administration into acting against Tymoshenko, Manafort client’s biggest rival at the time.

By accusing Tymoshenko of anti-semitism, with the help of his Israeli co-conspirator, Manafort planned on spreading the story to American media. Eventually, it would reach the American Jewish community (“Obama Jews,” as Manafort put it), which would then pressure Obama to work in the favor of Manafort’s client.

According to Haaretz, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s then-foreign minister could be the mysterious Israeli official mentioned in the document. In October, 2012, Lieberman published a statement viciously attacking political rivals of Manafort’s pro-Russian client. Ukrainian elections were held on October 28, 2012.

“Israel condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms, and expresses hope that common sense will prevail,” the statement read.

If Avigdor Lieberman is indeed the mysterious Israeli official mentioned in court documents, his and Manafort’s tactic worked, at least to an extent, considering the fact that various American media outlets published his statement, including Breitbart and the New York Times.

Avigdor Lieberman is currently the Defense Minister of Israel. Today, Lieberman denied ever meeting with, speaking to, or working with Paul Manafort.

Manafort weaponized antisemitism with ‘senior Israeli official’ in Ukraine lobbying scheme

https://t.co/W75z6Conqx

— The Jerusalem Post (@Jerusalem_Post) September 14, 2018

According to the Jerusalem Post, along with Manafort’s deep ties to Ukraine’s pro-Russia politicians, political influence campaigns directed by other states, such as Israel, through Manafort, are also attracting Robert Mueller’s attention.

The Jerusalem Post, too, noted that Avigdor Lieberman appears to be the unnamed Israeli official mentioned in court documents.

These developments may come as a surprise to the American public, but some intellectuals have warned that other foreign powers, along with Russia, have meddled in U.S. elections multiple times.

As the Inquisitr previously reported, renowned linguist Noam Chomsky recently argued — without denying Russian election interference — that Israel meddles in U.S. internal affairs “openly, brazenly and with enormous support.”

Manafort weaponized antisemitism with ‘senior Israeli official’ in Ukraine lobbying scheme

Jerusalem Post, “Muller: Manafort used ‘Obama’s Jews’ to smear Ukrainian leader”, 14 Sept 2018:

Israeli Defense Minister Liberman seems to be implicated in the affair.

Paul Manafort tried to use misleading charges of antisemitism against a senior Obama administration official to pressure the former president to go soft on his Ukrainian client, Viktor Yanukovych, in 2012, according to documents released on Friday by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office.

New “superseding” criminal information was released this morning as part of a plea agreement reached between Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman who faced charges for lobbying law violations, and Mueller, the special prosecutor investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Manafort has already been convicted on several counts of federal bank and tax fraud brought by the special counsel.

Mueller describes a scheme by Manafort to manipulate “Obama’s Jews”– in Manafort’s own words– to pressure the administration to disavow Yanukovych’s political archrival, Yulia Tymoshenko, by highlighting her alleged ties to antisemitic groups and spreading stories that an Obama “Cabinet official” supporting her cause was antisemitic by proxy.

Manafort “coordinated with a senior Israeli government official” to publicize the story, Mueller charged, seeking to convince the administration that “the Jewish community will take this out on Obama in the [2012 presidential] election if he does nothing.” The Israeli official is not named.

According to archived articles from the time, the cabinet official referenced in the Mueller documents appears to be then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and the Israeli official appears to be Avigdor Liberman, then minister of foreign affairs.

He then fed claims to Obama officials that Yanukovych was working to quell the manicured crisis, hoping to ingratiate him with the administration.

Manafort’s deep ties to Ukraine’s pro-Russia figures, paired with his prominent role in Trump’s presidential campaign, has drawn Mueller’s attention as he investigates whether US persons coordinated with Moscow to influence the 2016 race.