[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.
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.
Except for the bit about Europe this is a good article. Federation would not destroy our sovereignty it would guarantee it, just as the rights of California or New York are protected by the federal constitution of the USA. - Bill Baillie
What is Real Nationalism? - James Caterill
From the BNP Website - https://bnp.org.uk/
The word ‘nation’ derives from the Latin for ‘to be born’, by which the Romans meant having roots in a common bloodline, rather than merely being born in the same place. The members of a nation invariably also share the same language, history, values and culture - including traditions and popular entertainment. Often they have the same religion or attitude to religion. These shared ancestral roots, experiences (good and bad) and aspirations combine to make the broad mass of people identify with the nation and with fellow members of it.
While the members of a nation often live under one government, the nation and the state are not the same thing. Nations can be subjected to foreign rule for centuries but still retain their identity and thirst for their freedom. The nation is what really matters, a living thing whose present owes both a debt to its past heroes and sacred duties to its as yet unborn future generations. The state is merely the form of government which the nation chooses, for the time being, as for it and for its future survival. In a healthy society without problems of external domination or an out-of-control elite, the form of government will reflect the traditions and the innate character of the people making the nation. The state and its personnel should serve the nation , not the other way round.
Shared culture is one of the most important building blocks of a strong nation, but it is not the only one. Modern scientific research is now identifying the specific genes for certain kinds of behaviour - conformism and individuality, for example. It shows that the proportion of such genes vary among different human populations. This doesn’t mean that any one group is ‘better’ than another, it does mean that human populations are different. The rebuttal of old Marxist egalitarianism proves that culture springs from the inborn nature of the people. Put simply, when large numbers of Brits went to India, they didn’t become Indian, either in terms of ethnic identity or culture. And if large numbers of Africans come to Britain, breathing English air or even being born in England can never make them or their descendants English.
Even if a nation is composed of the descendants of immigrants (the USA, for example), why should that mean that it should accept further mass immigration on a scale that brings poverty and social collapse to many of its communities? In any case, it is not true in Britain. Again, the latest DNA science has buried the old liberal lies for good. We know that the vast majority of indigenous Brits can trace their ancestry directly back to the first post-Ice Age hunter gatherer settlers of our lands - 17,000 years ago. Further waves of genetically and culturally closely related tribes arrived in Neolithic times as farmers, and these were ‘topped up’ by further migration from mainland Europe, the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings for example. Tests on 9,000-year-old remains of Cheddar Man found that the local village school-teacher was his direct descendant. By comparison, the Maoris only reached New Zealand 700 years ago, yet no liberal would dare to sneer that they are “mere immigrants”.
Nationalists reject these double standards and insist that the British people are the indigenous, ‘first people’ of our islands and are entitled to recognition and respect as such.
The liberal-left talk a lot about diversity, but the mass immigration policies and One World ‘ideas’ they promote are in fact destroying human diversity. At present there are around 5,000 different national/linguistic/tribal groups in the world. This wonderful diversity is being wiped out so fast that scientists estimate that by the end of this century only 800 will survive. This catastrophic wipe-out of human bio-diversity can only be stopped if the free peoples of the world reject the Marxist propaganda and capitalist greed that together both favour mass migration and the destruction of separate nations through integration. All peoples have the right to control their geographical and cultural borders so as to preserve their identity. And the individuals and regimes running their states must either help this process or lose all legitimacy.
A nation can assimilate a limited number of immigrants. The more different they are and the larger their numbers, the harder this becomes. At a certain point - which can only be recognised if the host population are free to express their concerns openly - immigration stops being about the rights of immigrants and becomes about the colonisation and dispossession of the indigenous community. Even if integration is possible, it is only acceptable if the original inhabitants welcome it without brainwashing or coercion, and it should never be on such a scale as to fundamentally change the identity and core characteristics of the nation in question. Genocide - the destruction of a people - does not have to involve mass murder. Its evil can also be accomplished through propaganda and social conditioning to encourage different populations to mix. Tyrannical regimes have done this for centuries, knowing that rootless and divided populations are easier to control and exploit than proud and homogenous nations.
What’s so special about Britain and the British? First, we have the same rights to our land, and to self-government within it, as every other indigenous people on Earth. Second, the genius of the closely related British family of nations who are indigenous to our islands has made an absolutely unique contribution to the development of human freedom, happiness and material comfort of the whole world. The rule of law, free speech and parliamentary democracy, the Industrial revolution, the computer age, some of the world’s finest literature, so many great sports - these and many other things are our special gift to Mankind. Why should a people who have achieved so much, and who still have so much to achieve, meekly accept their dispossession and destruction by an elite that has no democratic mandate for such drastic change? The free peoples of Britain have never consented either to mass immigration or to the snuffing out of our right to self-determination in a federal Europe. That is why resistance to those evils is not only a matter of right, but of duty to our nation. Our duty - and your duty - not only on behalf of those alive today, but for the British heroes of the past and for those yet to be born.
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.
.jpg?r=1586936888)
Clinton sell-out, Maxwell’s Judeo-supremacism and the hoarding of sexual resource.
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