[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.
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.
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.
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.
Joel Davis, Richard Spencer et al. in a recent podcast (not the podcasts referenced in this article).
Or would they prefer to take it up the ass?
We have long followed the Jewish op called “the Alt-Right”, a stewarding of Whites reacting to Political Correctness and its hyperbolic activist groups and coalitions deemed “social justice warriors.” Though these “social justice warriors”, themselves, were an anti White orchestration by Jewish academia, that is a fact glossed-over in this stewarding of Whites by contrast, broadly conducted along the crypo kosher devised platform of paleoconservativsm, but spearheaded pointedly by Paul Gottfried; who saw the need circa 2008, to head off the intersectionality of a necessarily growing consciousness that Jews were not exactly a downtrodden group, but to the contrary, occupying elite niches in society, often unjustly and wielding that power unjustly. Hence the need, from a Jewish perspective, to divert that nascent awareness, the logical counter of White unionization (a leftist thing) and coalition building; and to promote instead a characterology of “The Left” as the enemy, “Social Justice Warriors” its deluded minions. ... we don’t want any of that social justice now that Jews are on top (in more hegemony than ever) ...along with any scummy Whites who are willing to sell out to Jewish interests, now do we?
No, this un-kosher intersectionality could be headed off by moving Whites from false Jewish opposition number one - NeoConservatism - and reviving false Jewish opposition number two - Paleoconserativism - updated 2.0, to appeal to a younger (and naive) audience to include a broader variety of reactionaries, not trying to fit all right wing reactionaries under one tent, but rather create a tentosphere, a loose coalition divide and conquer juggling act that could allow for Christians, Jewish right wingers, neo-Nazis and the scientistic generally, along with nutty conspiracy theorists. Membership seemed to require at least one socially stigmatizing attachment - then you could be a minor e-celebrity, arguing against “the left” and “social justice warriors”, equipped directly by Madison Ave marketing firms with memes and narratives to absolve you (and YKW) from responsibility and accountability, narratives provided for the “Alt-Right”, of pure scientific objectivity, facts of nature as the sole reason that you are on top and the sheer natural injustice of the world, the reason that you are not accountable, “the reason that things are not equal, like THE left character always unnaturally insists upon.”
Richard Spencer is apparently happy to go along with the Jewish misdirection to promote the “SJW’s are the problem” meme ...take the bribe and pay off of this Jewish, Madison Ave marketing campaign, where it originated, focusing on the vastly distorted, hyperbolic anti White “social justice warrior”, really a Jewish academic creation, and talk about it instead, as if it is an organic phenomenon stemming from religious origin, ether, in order to divert Whites from organizing themselves and pursuing their social justice; which would bring into full view Jewish elite niches, their injustice along with right wing/liberal sell outs - seeing them clearly as out-groups:
Is it really necessary, Richard, to go along with memes convenient to (((them))), a meme like this having obviousy been put out by (((their))) Madison Ave. marketing machine? Sure, let’s be against Social Justice now that (((they))) are unjustly on top of everything and right wing sell outs like you, Richard, are perfectly willing to sell out ethnonationalism; contributing to the marketing of this meme, taking (((their))) hyperbolic, anti-White coalitions as being The thing that social justice is about, whereas “reality” and White advocacy can supposedly have no part in social justice. But then, I guess it is convenient to a blue blood like yourself, one with no character. Typical right wing, anti-social bullshit, treacherous, sell out.
And about philosophy student, Joel Davis, with whom you do philosophical hangouts now…
He is the one who necessitated a rebut from me for his conversation with Josh Neal. I believe the discussion between Josh Neal and Joel Davis is off line (I’ll try to find it), but Joel Davis was saying unequivocally that “Israel is our friend.” ...not that it is some kind of supremacist cluster fuck trying to extend its reach over the whole world as “the shining beacon” to the “down trodden masses” - downtrodden because the tribe blends us down and grinds us down.
Joel Davis, who for some interesting reason keeps speaking of Mencius Moldbug (((Curtis Yarvin))) as if he someone authoritative to refer-to, to look up to, when in fact, Yarvin is clearly operating in Jewish interests, misdirecting Whites with his Ops, “Dark Enlightenment” and into “Neo Reaction” etc., ops focusing on co-opting STEM types especially, those who tend to be naive about the machinations as opposed to proper uses of social sciences and the humanities.
Here is Joel Davis in the chat of a Paul Gottfried stream, apparently very interested in getting in with Gottfried:
First, I will give you the excerpts of Joel, followed by the whole chat:
joeldavis
Cotto, where do you think institutional support could possibly come from for a legitimate paradigm shift to occur away from the Neoliberal/Neocon binary?
Right Ruminations
My point is that you can’t understand to how Catholics deal with this history until you understand the particulars of Catholics doctrine. A term applied to Mary may be historical but that “Star of the Sea” is not doctrine.
Ohm 7
Is Christianity invented by Jewish Elites of Old Time or a development of Old European Religion?
orabell
invention of Paul
joeldavis
According to this analysis, wouldn’t that render Protestantism to be a ‘de-paganization’ of Christianity?
Ultra Testosterone
Protestant is closer but it still depends on gospels
orabell
yes.. it moved them farther away from their pre-Abrahamist , pagan, roots..
joeldavis
Cotto, do you believe Christianity will remain culturally dominant for the forseeable or have we passed the point of no return?
joeldavis
The dissident right’s inability to find coherence seems to be a consequence of a lack of religious convergence as much as anything.
joeldavis
Good call Imperius, as long as we remain alienated (post)protestants we lack the ability to build coherent moral language.
Oswald Spengler
@joeldavis hey joel loved your chat with keith woods
Ultra Testosterone
Cotto should do stream labs so he gets more of the money
Oswald Spengler
also john david ebert
joeldavis
@Oswald Spengler thanks man, would love to get on this program or have these guys on my channel sometime as well.
Oswald Spengler
that’d be great
joeldavis I tried emailing Gottfried recently, but no response this far, i’ll keep trying.
Ultra Testosterone
Gottfried is a good guy but he didn’t get some of top tier scholarship jokes
Ultra Testosterone
Cotto is more aware of the jokes
Brando Calrissian
The demographics look pretty good for non-mainline-Protestant churches. Kaufmann’s book, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth, and the religious anthropology/population studies work of Ed Dutton
Ultra Testosterone
Different generation
Brando Calrissian
suggest that religions with high TFR and high retention will outbreed moderate religions and nones even in the developed west.
joeldavis i’d love to get their thoughts on building institutional support for the cutting edge ideas spinning out of the dissident right particularly.
Oswald Spengler
@joeldavis you should hook up with justin murphy too
joeldavis
@Oswald Spengler i’ve been on his channel already once before, i’ve been trying to organize an interview with him on my channel recently, hopefully we can organize that soon.
Oswald Spengler
@joeldavis sent you an invite on FB, i’m “joseph ducreux”
Luke Avedon
@Cotto-Gottfried When is @Right Ruminations coming on by the way?
Right Ruminations
@Luke Avedon I am well. A sub of mind just made a new channel - Terminal Philosophy - and had me as his first guest. I think he his channel has promise for the Rumisphere as it were.
Schizo Ric AKA Quantrell Bishop
@joeldavis is the MAN!
Oswald Spengler
@Cotto-Gottfried would it be a good thing for economics as a field to be destroyed by intersectionality?
Schizo Ric AKA Quantrell Bishop
@Cotto-Gottfried get @joeldavis on your channel for an interview
joeldavis
Cheers Schizo, i’d love to.
Curious Cretin
Are Mormons pagan?
Oswald Spengler
lol^
joeldavis
“i’ve never been called a nerd before”
joeldavis
high-T
joeldavis
response
Oswald Spengler
cotto is 6 6
Ultra Testosterone
lol
Ultra Testosterone
Truth
Oswald Spengler
@Cotto-Gottfried thoughts on the now-not-so-new atheists?
Imperius
There’s way more money we can give. I’ve been hard at work setting the infrastructure. Just let me know the channel where you will get more of it, like PayPal.
joeldavis
Cheers Cotto, i’ll try the outlook address.
Luke Avedon
@Cotto-Gottfried Nice! I will check it out.
Ohm 7
Yo I went to take a bath and missed the answer about if Christianity has descended from Jewish Elites of the Hellenic Times or from the Old European Religion?
Imperius
We’re moving into phase two the end of this year, which is why I tried seeking out Gottfried and found that there was even this Cotto guy, lol. Solid guy.
Luke Avedon
@Right Ruminations I like that he has a Blade Runner avatar. My favorite film of all time.
Ultra Testosterone
Trump 2020
Imperius
So many factions aren’t talking to each other as much as they should. It’s left to younger guys to have less hesitation.
Ohm 7
Cotto, I’d highly recommend having Keith Woods on, he’s one of the most interesting Leftists on the internet right now I think, he’s an Irish Nationalist
Imperius
Keith Woods isn’t a leftist.
Imperius
He’s a folk nativist. Most of intellectual history, leftism has been anti-nativist.
Imperius
Yeah, there’s cross-over, but don’t simply call him a leftist.
Right Ruminations
@Luke Avedon I like that he had set a specific atmosphere from the outset. I am afraid that the atmosphere of my channel had been too haphazard.
Finally, Joel Davis shows how he wants to co-opt the ultimate move of left nationalism, which by his idea would include Jews:
joeldavis
Misconceiving a Nationalist as a Leftist is a symptom of the post-Cold War propaganda hangover. The Right should be unapologetic about subordinating Capital to the National interest.
However, Gottfried man Right Ruminations pushes back, not wanting to share the wealth, of course ..
Right Ruminations
@joeldavis The neoliberals support both globalism and heavy intervention in the market. I don’t agree with the implication that nationalism and economic individualism are mutually exclusive
Priti Patel today signalled a fresh crackdown on illegal migrants crossing the English Channel as she also vowed to tackle ‘vexatious’ asylum claims.
The Home Secretary conceded that there are currently higher numbers of people trying to cross the stretch of water.
But she said she is working to agree a scheme with Paris which would allow Britain to return illegal migrants to France after they have come ashore in the UK or if they are picked up while at sea.
She also vowed to focus Home Office efforts on combatting ‘vexatious methods’ and ‘vexatious claims’ around illegal immigration and asylum.
Well, good luck with that. Patel, like every other politician is ignoring the elephant in the room - the UN Refugee Convention 1951 and the 1967 Protocol, to which both Britain and France are signatories. The Convention states…
The principle of non-refoulement [pushbacks] is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return a refugee against his or her will in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom
But France is a safe country so they are not genuine refugees ?
A refugee does not cease to be a refugee simply because they leave one host country to travel to another. A person is a refugee because of the lack of protection by their country of origin.
The Convention also states the basic rights of refugees as going well beyond ‘physical safety’ and include freedom of movement within the state, rights to work, access to housing, education, travel documents and more. The absence of ‘means of subsistence’ is justification for moving on and seeking a ‘decent human life’.
Illegal ?
The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalised for their illegal entry or stay. This recognises that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.
When it comes to refugee status feelings matter. Does the individual feel safe ? This isn’t lost on the likes of Amnesty International and other NGO’s known to tutor would be refugees on the right things to say and how to behave during assessments. Amnesty recorded the words of Josue, a 53 year old from Honduras, on the Mexico - Us border..
I don’t feel safe here. Anything can happen, because I’m Honduran. The police here are very corrupt and they steal the money of lots of people.
The 1951 Convention gives human rights lawyers the upper hand in any court case concerning asylum and refugee status, as in April of last year, when a US federal court issued a preliminary injunction banning the further implementation of Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ aka the ‘Migrant Protection Protocol’.
It’s hard to accept any politician or political party as being serious about ending the ‘refugee’ problem unless they first announce that they are withdrawing the country from the 1951 Convention. The current system only really benefits organized crime - people smugglers and lawyers - and is unfit for purpose. Free of the Convention, countries can decide for themselves whether or not to accept refugees and if they believe an individual or group of people are worthy of refugee status and are willing to provide sanctuary, they can cut out the middle men and go collect; which is something Britain did for the Ugandan Asians and Hong Kong Chinese.
With particular attention to the Manichean (trickster) evolution of those evolved in temperate climates where competition is more against other groups (thus, evolving trickery) as opposed to those evolved in climates where nature, Augustinian challenges (natural challenges) are the greater concern, i.e., in protracted spans when food and shelter are the greatest challenge and threat to survival: we might consider what can happen when Manicheans are introduced to habitats of the northern, “naive” species.
There is an analogy to the introduction of invasive species to habitats where the species are naive - not having evolved defense against the invasive; but while this tends to be a phenomenon of accident in the animal world - e.g., invasive species being carried along in ships - it can be compounded by deliberate imposition in the social world.
Naive species and the introduction of manichean species
Social groups evolved in circumstances where brutal and cyclical elements of nature deprive food and ready shelter for extended periods are less the challenge, are put in more direct competition with other groups [hypothesized of Middle Easterners] for easier resource and recourse in shelter; thus develop trickery (“Manichean devils”) to compete with the other groups for resource as opposed to those [hypothesized of Europeans, esp. north] evolved more in the circumstances where the challenge comes more from brute nature (“Augustinian devils”); who become stronger in STEM disciplines but somewhat naive species and socially gauche - dupes compared to Manicheans if they are introduced to their habitat (nation); and providing more reason for them to recognize these groups, despite any crypsis (phenotypic appearance like the in group despite being of a genetic outgroup), more reason to recognize them as out groups - belonging to another nation.
While the powers that be with their liberal “pan-mixia” agenda are of course only reluctant protectors of the borders and ever the more pernicious abusers of control of individual liberties within the borders by means of modern technology and the excuse of pandemic, the key counter to them is, of course, achieving ethnohomogeneity and focusing on how to do it.
This is to be done by means of the DNA Nations and unionization on its basis.
So we all have to stay in our houses to stop the spread, everyday there’s videos of the police abusing their powers in the name of this ‘lockdown’ but they don’t mind 15,000 people a day flying into the country? - From Good Morning Britain audience. Reported by Daily Express
UK coronavirus lockdown: what are the rules, and when will it be lifted?
Government has closed schools, pubs, restaurants, cafes, gyms and other businesses under new lockdown measures.
Boris Johnson has placed the UK on a police-enforced lockdown with drastic new measures in the fight against the coronavirus outbreak.
The Prime Minister ordered people only to leave their homes under a list of “very limited purposes”, banned public gatherings of anyone not from the same household and ordered the closure of non-essential shops.
Every citizen must comply with these new measures and the relevant authorities, including the police, have been given the powers to enforce them through fines and dispersing gatherings.
These measures were introduced on March 23, and theThese measures were introduced on March 23, and the Government had stated these measures would be reviewed after three weeks, and relaxed if the evidence showed this was possible….
Britons furious as UK not testing 15,000-a-day arriving in UK airports: ‘Ridiculous!
MATT HANCOCK joined Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid on Good Morning Britain today in a heated discussion regarding the government’s current plans to continue to tackle coronavirus. However, fans were left furious as they heard the Health Secretary reveal that people are arriving in the UK from coronavirus hotspots and are not being tested for the deadly virus.
Good Morning Britain viewers were left furious today as Health Secretary Matt Hancock revealed there was a distinct lack of testing at airports for people coming into the UK from coronavirus hotspots. Morgan and Hancock engaged in a very heated debate over the subject and viewers also hit out at the health secretary online.
After Reid quizzed Hancock on the government’s exit strategy for the end of the lockdown, Morgan was keen to ask whether those still arriving in the UK were being tested for Covid-19
Referencing the importance of testing, Morgan asked: “If it’s so crucial, why are we still having all our airports open, flying in from coronavirus hotspots like New York, like Italy, like China.
“It doesn’t make sense to me that we are allowing tens of thousands of people to come into our airports and walk into our communities without even a basic test.
“And given that we know that many people can be asymptomatic. Can you explain that?
“We do of course have different treatment from different places according to how serious the outbreak is-” Hancock began to respond.
But Morgan interrupted: “How many people are you testing at airports?
Hancock explained: “The number of people coming through has dropped very very dramatically and very low -
“How many have come in this week?” Morgan interrupted.
“About 15,000,” Hancock replied, with Morgan hitting back: “So that’s about 15,000 a day without any test?”
Hancock’s admission left those watching at home furious and many took to Twitter to express their anger.
“#GMB @piersmorgan great question on why are all these people coming in from hotspots untested, why!!!? We will never get out of this going round in circles,” one viewer raged.
Another added: “So we all have to stay in our houses to stop the spread, everyday there’s videos of the police abusing their powers in the name of this ‘lockdown’ but they don’t mind 15,000 people a day flying into the country?” #GMB.
Progressive liberals are advancing their strategy, however winners make the fewest mistakes and I feel that the viral #YouClapForMeNow video is a big mistake by our opponents - mancinblack
.jpg?r=1586936888)
Clinton sell-out, Maxwell’s Judeo-supremacism and the hoarding of sexual resource.
Joel Davis, Richard Spencer et al. in a recent podcast (not the podcasts referenced in this article).
Eddie Murphy has how many children with how many different women?
Welfare not only provides money, but frees up the precious resource of time, for people like 
Ignoring the elephant in the room