Majorityrights News > Category: Activism

Friends, Family Members Reeling Following George Floyd’s Death

(1:01) George Floyd’s girlfriend’s manner of speaking is interesting.

2nd Day Of Protests At MPD 3rd Precinct Devolves Into Flames

30 April 2020:

The unedited version of the presentation I wanted to turn in. Let me know what you think fam. The parts not highlighted I read to my class.

Editor’s note: this is a work in progress.

I will be adding to it here and in comments below as time goes on.

Red cape: misrepresenting what would be a good idea for Whites so they chase it away and pursue its opposite.

While I will be mostly adding condensed raw material, what we may refer to as “specificatory structures” for further shaping and crafting, “Red Caping” is one of the few more ready-to-go memes

Red caping implies a strategy that I am convinced the YKW deploy, of taking a good idea for social group maintenance, and presenting it in such a way so as to make it offensive to Whites, even on an abstract level - a level on which it can and should be deployed in White defense; but presented as a sheer antagonistic concept, Whites chase after it like a bull to the matador’s red cape; fighting against our own interests.

Easy examples would be “multiculturalism” and “diversity”...

These ideals would seem to imply that Whites can and should maintain their distinction and sovereignty along side other distinct groups in the world - nice idea.

However, the YKW have presented it in such a way, and Whites react accordingly, that it is about doing away with any White difference - and indeed that’s true: “diversity” as they mean it, does mean chasing down the last Whites (and forcing them to interbreed with others or die) and “multiculturalism” red capes what is really monoculturalism - except for the YKW, in their agenda.

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

As Whites chase after the red cape reversal, you’ll hear the naive reacting to Angela Merkel’s statement that “multiculturalism has utterly failed” as if “hey, even she gets it now”, while in effect she is calling for integration; i.e., final stage destruction of our genome.

When Pat Buchanan was running for president back in the 90’s, he referred to “the sewer of multiculturalism”, which he argued should be rejected in favor of every American being required to learn English and encouraged to participate in Christian culture ..again, this is to have chased the YKW red cape into integrationism, our genetic destruction.

As meme’s go, we might picture the Happy Merchant’s head replacing the matador’s head, while on the red cape might be written, say, “multiculturalism.”

On the bull might be written, “White man” saying “it’s a failed idea, what we want is assimilation” ..something like that.

GIF action might work well, revealing integration on the other side of the redcaping.

Now, “Multiculturalism” and “Diversity” aren’t the most ingenious examples of red caping; fairly transparent, though some still seem to be falling for it to an extent (sorry Mark).

There are other, trickier and more important red capes, which I have infamously attempted to explicate to White advocates:

“THE Left” is a red cape that would be a bit harder to have understood, but not impossible, nor impossible to meme; and important to explain and get through to our people.

And the red cape of the whole characterology of “THE” Left, is one about associating anti-Whitism and its “Social Justice Warrior” minions, their vast, antagonistic distortions (inculcated by YKW academics) of the process of conceptualization, working hypotheses that should be correctable, but do not deal with reality, nature, facts, etc., in this strict characterology of THE Left; i.e., associating it with ALL left-type concerns - crucially diverting attention from the legitimacy of unionization of the national ethne, as it would structure social accountability and correctability’s underlying natural fit with ethnonationalism. Thereby misrepresenting that which on an abstract level is a necessary part of any process of sense making and inquiry, including scientific.

“Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis”
- Alfred North Whitehead

In effect, Whites react into an altercast Right Wing purity spiral beyond or below praxis, its accountability and correctivity - against our capacity to maintain ourselves as a group.

They’ve got Whites conceptually fighting against social justice, against a daft concept of equality (which altercasts our people as despotic, elitist assholes) against our conceptualization as a people, organization and unionization, because race is “not a social construct”, it is only about pure facts (not as if we can breed with other races, and therefore a modicum of social construct is unavoidable); making short shrift if any to accountability and its affordance of coherence, agency and warrant.

I’ve discussed the red caping of “post modernity” and how they’ve got our people chasing against their own interests, will see about condensing other ideas from that article.

But red caping is not the only meme on offer and I will be setting out some other material for meming in a few….

Despite his rather assigned position to cover things from an Alternative Right angle - circa 2015 of the article being featured below - and moving from that misdirection-op to an even more kosher “Affirmative Right” position now, for his journalistic rigor Colin Liddell does a fine job of exposing right wing complicity in its dovetail with liberal “progressivism” for a halo of innocence in the project of our destruction.

And while Dissident Rightism, the Affirmative Right, whatever Right, dutifully follows the Alt-Right’s program to co-opt White reaction and direct it with elite Jewish interests, as such going along with a (((Madison Ave.))) characterology of “the left” as the enemy, with all the abuses and distortions of the necessary hypothetical end of inquiry that it can invoke from its pre-intersectional anti-White Marxist and cultural Marxist sophomore coalitions in perpetuating loop with tenured professors, a hypothetical end of inquiry that would otherwise be left to our autonomous group systemic governance to be corrected with rigorous feedback on normal calibration of working hypotheses (praxis/our group), instead the calibration of group interests are misleadingly labeled “THE Left”, its characterized minions called “social justice warriors” ...misleading labels for what is to us, liberalism (anti-our-White-groups/anti-White ethnonational left unionization) or the international, anti-White left and its coalition of anti-White advocacy groups, as if Whites should have a problem with social justice, be repulsed by it, and not unionize in the interests of our justice and a more sustainable justice in relation to others.

It is worth a look thus, even though it is not that time of year again, since right wing and liberal complicity with YKW antagonism remains a perennial concern:

NOBEL SAVAGES

by Colin Liddell, Affirmative Right, originally published 11 Oct 2015:

It’s that time of year again, when a few forgotten scientists, a largely unread writer, and some organization or individual that may or may not have done something for World Peace are given Nobel prizes. The actual awards ceremony usually comes in December, but just so the winners have enough time to book a flight to Stockholm and rent a tux, the announcements are made round about this time. But is the Nobel Prize what it seems, or is it the manifestation of something a lot more sinister?

Most people take it at face value, seeing it as a fitting conclusion to some presumably worthy scientific (or other) career – although most remain oblivious as to why this or that individual should win it over their peers. Most also remain decidedly foggy on how the prize winners are actually selected, both officially and with regard to the behind-the-scene string pulling and other factors that no doubt tip the scales this way or that.

But to see the Nobel Prize merely as an innocent award is to take it on its own terms, and thus to have your perceptions framed and shaped by it. This means you accept its projected image: as a fair and objective expression of “the progressive spirit of mankind” (a nebulous concept with admixtures of other nebulous concepts: ‘science,’ ‘peace,’ ‘excellence,’ ‘univeralism,’ etc.), and you also accept the implied association of this “positive” image with Scandinavia in general and Sweden in particular, without giving it too much thought. In short, the Nobel Prize is subtle, under-the-radar, positive brainwashing for Sweden.

The positive associations of Sweden (and Norway, which bestows the peace prize) are delicately dripped into the heads of the masses year-after-year with the same gentle pulse of propaganda in the weeks leading up to Xmas. They are subtly reminded that, yes, there is a place somewhere where progress is king, dedicated to the never-ending improvements of humanity and the bright, brilliant future that awaits us all some day.

READ MORE...

ON Bitchute: Dr. Frank Salter: ON THE ETHNIC GENETIC INTERESTS OF EUROPEANS

Bitchute Version

VertigoPolitix, 30 Mar 2020:

Dr. Frank Salter’s immensely vital academic contributions to the genetic understanding of European ethnic groups, their health and welfare, and the need to safeguard these in a largely multicultural Western world, are explored in this video essay…

Source: https://www.amren.com/news/2018/05/et

While the video has been removed from Youtube:

Here it is on Bitchute.

Elites Union-Busting Plan: “Diversity”

Hence their program to characterize (stereotype) and vilify “The left”, misdefined as necessarily being in international Marxist, anti-ethnonational or Cultural Marxist, anti White terms.

Redacted FBI document hints at Israeli efforts to help Trump in 2016 campaign

Times of Israel 29 April 2020:

Affidavit quotes Trump confidant Roger Stone being told by a Jerusalem contact: ‘He is going to be defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your hands!’

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, and US President Donald Trump shake hands at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, May 23, 2017. (AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Donald Trump who was convicted last year in Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, was in contact with one or more apparently well-connected Israelis at the height of the 2016 US presidential campaign, one of whom warned Stone that Trump was “going to be defeated unless we intervene” and promised “we have critical intell[sic].”

The exchange between Stone and this Jerusalem-based contact appears in FBI documents made public on Tuesday. The documents — FBI affidavits submitted to obtain search warrants in the criminal investigation into Stone — were released following a court case brought by The Associated Press and other media organizations.

A longtime adviser to Trump, Stone officially worked on the 2016 presidential campaign until August 2015, when he said he left and Trump said he was fired. However he continued to communicate with the campaign, according to Mueller’s investigation.

The FBI material, which is heavily redacted, includes one explicit reference to Israel and one to Jerusalem, and a series of references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a “minister without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,” the PM, and the Prime Minister. In all these references the names and countries of the minister and prime minister are redacted.

Section of FBI document with heavily redacted references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a “minister without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,” the PM, and the Prime Minister.

Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel’s prime minister in 2016, and the Israeli government included a minister without portfolio, Tzachi Hanegbi, appointed in May with responsibility for defense and foreign affairs. One reference to the unnamed PM in the material reads as follows: “On or about June 28, 2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, “RETURNING TO DC AFTER URGENT CONSULTATIONS WITH PM IN ROME.MUST MEET WITH YOU WED. EVE AND WITH DJ TRUMP THURSDAY IN NYC.” Netanyahu made a state visit to Italy at the end of June 2016.

READ MORE...

Clinton sell-out, Maxwell’s Judeo-supremacism and the hoarding of sexual resource.

Comparing Income & Sex Redistribution

By Robin Hanson · June 26, 2018:

Disclaimer: This post is on sensitive topics of sex and power. I try to make it clear when I make a claim; beware drawing indirect inferences; I rarely value signal.

As promised in my last post, I now return after a civility pause to the topic of comparing sex and income inequality and redistribution. This post will be unusually long, as I’m trying harder to speak carefully.

If a feature of individuals can be compared across individuals, and ranked, then we can say that some people have more of it than others. We can then talk about how equally or unequally this feature is distributed across a population. Some features are seen as good things, where most people like to have more of it, all else equal. And the values that people place on some good things exhibit diminishing marginal utility (DMU). That is, people put a higher value on getting a bit more of it when they don’t have much, relative to when they have more.

For good things, we usually seek policies (including informal social norms and formal programs by government, charities, and other organizations) that can raise its distribution, all else equal, and get more of it to more people. And for good things with DMU, unequal distributions are regrettable, all else equal, as any one unit is worth more to those who have less. Any policy that changes a distribution is by definition said to “redistribute” that thing. (If you doubt me, consult a dictionary.) A policy that reduces inequality more might be said to do “more” redistribution.

Eddie Murphy has how many children with how many different women?

Of course all else is usually not equal. People vary in their ability to produce things, in the value they place on things, and in how much those people are valued by their society. Both the things that people value, and the arrangements that produce them, tend to be complex, multi-dimensional, and context-dependent. “Income” and “sex” are both labels that point to such complex, multi-dimensional and context-dependent good things. Both are usually produced via unique pairings, sex between a man and a woman, and income between an employer and an employee. The value of these pairings vary greatly across possible pairings, and also with a lot of other context.

Welfare not only provides money, but frees up the precious resource of time, for people like Desmond Hatchet to have 30 children with 11 different women.

For income, centuries of effort has resulted in several simple accounting methods by which we can define each person’s “income”, though we know that these measures miss a lot of what we care about. For example, regions vary in living expenses, people vary in their health-induced medical expenses, some jobs are easier and more enjoyable than others, some people have more expensive tastes than others, some assets are illiquid and unique, and there’s a key difference between what people own and what they consume. All these issues make it hard to say exactly who has more “income”.

This complexity makes it harder to analyze policies that influence income. Even so, when arguing about policy, people often mention income redistribution advantages or disadvantages of policies, such as regarding taxes, schools, medicine, housing, immigration, and much more. (Such policies usually let either side veto each particular employee-employer pairing.) Reducing income inequality is widely seen as a legitimate policy goal, even if people don’t agree on its priority relative to other goals. Income, and our related informal norms and formal policies, have changed greatly over the last few centuries, though less so over the last half century.

On sex, we might in principle compare individual counts of simple sex acts to get a rough indication of sex inequality, though we know that such a measure would miss a lot that matters. But even though sex is complex, hard to specify, and varied, it is also clearly important to many (both male and female). As is income. People often explicitly mention effects on sex when arguing for and against policies in many areas, such as marriage, prostitution, dating, birth control, nudity, pornography, drugs, child care, housing, and recreation. In the last half century, we’ve seen big changes in both informal norms and formal policies related to sex. People seem to be more sensitive today on the topic of policies related to sex, relative to those related to income, perhaps in part due to recent changes being bigger.

In my April 26 post, I noted that recently some people (self-labelled “incels”) have explicitly and publicly sought less sex inequality, a few via violence, and I wondered why they are so few relative to, and overlap so little with, those seeking less income inequality. I mentioned a few specific possible policies, such as cash transfers conditional on individual sex rates, legalized prostitution, and stronger support for monogamy and marriage. (I did not support or oppose any specific policies.)

But these were just examples; the fact that sex is so complex and integrated into so many social practices implies that a great many policy levers must exist. Who has how much sex with who is influenced by what we count as status and beauty, where people live, where and how they meet, how they talk to each other, what they can learn about each other, and especially by where and when they can talk and meet privately.

I’m far from the first person to consider such policies. Historically, societies have passed laws to discourage premarital and extramarital sex, and to limit how many wives or concubines each man could have. Informal gossip and propaganda has tried to lower the sex appeal of rakes, foreigners, and the promiscuous, and to raise that of soldiers. Policies have limited where and when people might meet in privately, such as segregating student dorms by gender, and prohibiting unmarried couples from renting hotel rooms.

READ MORE...