[Majorityrights News] KP interview with James Gilmore, former diplomat and insider from first Trump administration Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 05 January 2025 00:35.
[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.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 04 November 2018 08:44.
“When higher rates trigger another recession, Trump can point an accusing finger at the central bank, absolving his own policies of liability and underscoring the need for a major overhaul of the Fed.”
Truthdig.com, “Trump’s War on the Fed”, 2 Nov 2018:
October was a brutal month for the stock market. After the Federal Reserve’s eighth interest rate hike, on Sept. 26, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 2,000 points, and the NASDAQ had its worst month in nearly 10 years. After the Dow lost more than 800 points on Oct. 10 and the S&P 500 suffered its first weeklong losing streak since Trump’s election, the president said, “I think the Fed is making a mistake. They are so tight. I think the Fed has gone crazy.” In a later interview on Fox News, he called the Fed’s rate hikes “loco.” And in a Wall Street Journal interview published on Oct. 24, Trump said he thought the biggest risk to the economy was the Federal Reserve, because “interest rates are being raised too quickly.” He also criticized the Fed and its chairman in July and August.
Trump’s criticisms are worrisome to some commentators, who fear he is attempting to manipulate the Fed and its chairman for political gain. Ever since the 1970s, the Fed has declared its independence from government, and presidents are supposed to avoid influencing its decisions. But other Fed watchers think politicians should be allowed to criticize the market manipulations of an apparently out-of-control central bank.
Why the Frontal Attack?
Even if the president’s challenges are a needed check on the Fed, some question whether he is going about it in the right way. Challenging the central bank in public forces it to stick to its guns, because it must maintain its credibility with the markets by showing that its decisions are based on sound economic principles rather than on political influence. If the president really wants the Fed to back off on interest rates, it has been argued, he should do it with a nod and a nudge, not a frontal attack on the Fed’s sanity.
True, but perhaps the president’s goal is not to subtly affect Fed behavior so much as to make it patently obvious who is to blame when the next Great Recession hits. And recession is fairly certain to hit, because higher interest rates almost always trigger recessions. The Fed’s current policy of “quantitative tightening”—tightening or contracting the money supply—is the very definition of recession, a term Wikipedia defines as “a business cycle contraction which results in a general slowdown in economic activity.”
This “business cycle” is not something inevitable, like the weather. It is triggered by the central bank. When the Fed drops interest rates, banks flood the market with “easy money,” allowing speculators to snatch up homes and other assets. When the central bank then raises interest rates, it contracts the amount of money available to spend and to pay down debt. Borrowers go into default and foreclosed homes go on the market at fire-sale prices, again to be snatched up by the monied class. But it is a game of Monopoly that cannot go on forever. According to Elga Bartsch, chief European economist at Morgan Stanley, one more financial cataclysm could be all that it takes for central bank independence to end. “Having been overburdened for a long time, many central banks might just be one more economic downturn or financial crisis away from a full-on political backlash,” she wrote in a note to clients in 2017. “Such a political backlash could call into question one of the long-standing tenets of modern monetary policy making—central bank independence.”
And that may be the president’s endgame. When higher rates trigger another recession, Trump can point an accusing finger at the central bank, absolving his own policies of liability and underscoring the need for a major overhaul of the Fed.
The Economist urges Europe to accept its merger with Africa gracefully
The Economist, owned by the Rothschilds, has always been at the forefront of globalism. Back in the early days of mass migration, it mocked those, such as Cyril Osborne, who warned that the population reserves of the Third World were infinite, and Europeans would seen be faced with minority status if the influx was allowed to continue.
Here we are only a few decades later and the Economist, in the same imperturbably smug tone that is its hallmark, now tells Europeans that their being merged with Africa is now inevitable and they should accept it gracefully.
Europe’s deluded politicians still say that we need to encourage development in Africa to stop them coming here. But as the Economist makes clear, prosperity acts as a driver of immigration, not the obverse.
Today’s waves of African migration are merely a prelude. Of the 2.2bn citizens added to the global population by 2050, 1.3bn will be Africans—about the size of China’s population today. And more of them will have the means to travel. Those Africans risking the trip north across the Mediterranean today are not the poorest, but those with a mobile phone to organise the trip and money to pay smugglers. Few of the Nigerians who attempt the crossing are from their country’s poor north, for example; almost all are from its wealthier south. As African countries gradually prosper, migration will surely increase, not decrease. Emmanuel Macron raised these points in a recent interview. The French president was recommending a new book, “The Rush to Europe”, published in French by Stephen Smith of Duke University, which models past international migrations like that of Mexicans into America to show that the number of Afro-Europeans (Europeans with African roots) could rise from 9m at present to between 150m and 200m by 2050, perhaps a quarter of Europe’s total population.
Rape is probably inevitable, women. Rather than resist it, you should do your best to try and enjoy it. Maybe your rapist will turn out to be a nice guy. You can have little brown sprogs with him and live happily ever after.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 01 November 2018 09:47.
Ending Birth-Right Citizenship is inherently important, but at this point, is it a sedative injection for America’s already baked-in Mulatto supremacist trajectory?
Is it just tossing a bone to right wing sell outs - a bone picked clean of loyal White interests? - for the Zionist quid pro quo?
“Trump Wants to Curb Birthright Citizenship, Escalating Immigration Debate”
Legal scholars dismiss the idea, saying a president lacks standing to do it on his own
WASHINGTON—President Trump said he wants to sign an executive order that ends the automatic right to citizenship for anyone born in the U.S., ratcheting up his election-season remarks on immigration with a proposal many legal scholars said is unconstitutional.
In an interview published Tuesday morning, just ahead of next week’s midterms, Mr. Trump said he planned an executive order to end what is known as birthright citizenship, bypassing Congress and waving off the belief of many legal scholars that such a move would require a change to the Constitution.
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” he told Axios. “It’s in the process. It’ll happen, with an executive order.”
Born in the U.S.Since 2007, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants has declined. Source: Pew Research Center
Constitutional scholars dismissed the idea, saying a president has no legal standing to end birthright citizenship with an executive order. “It’s basically saying the president is above the Constitution,” said Laura K. Donohue, a senior scholar at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.
The White House didn’t further explain Mr. Trump’s assertion that he alone could make the move, and it didn’t provide further details about the scope of the proposed executive order or the timing.
“We will let you know when we have an announcement,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.
Birthright citizenship is a pillar of U.S. immigration law and is protected by the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which, among other goals, was designed to grant full citizenship to former slaves. But some conservatives who favor more restrictive immigration laws have opposed the policy, saying it improperly rewards the children of people in the country who lack proper documentation.
Mr. Trump’s proposal is the latest in a string of pronouncements as he seeks to invigorate GOP voters ahead of the midterms. He recently suggested a middle-income tax cut that appeared to surprise both his staff and lawmakers. Last week, he said he would seek to cut prices that Medicare pays for some prescription drugs, but that wouldn’t go into effect until late 2019 or 2020.
Individuals can declare themselves bankrupt but it’s not so easy for nations. Argentina defaulted in 2001 and she is still suffering the consequences. The UK national debt currently stands at £1.8 trillion, which is almost as much as our GDP. The annual cost of this debt is £48 billion.
Few modern states earn more than they spend. The exceptions are oil-rich states with small populations, like Norway or Qatar. Most states spend more than they earn, particularly on fighting wars. They cover the deficit by borrowing from the banks and by selling bonds. This is known as the National Debt. Hilaire Belloc explained it in ‘Economics for Helen’:
“When these national loans began the Government honestly intended to pay back what they had borrowed. But the method was so fatally easy that as time went on, and the debt piled up and up until there could be no question of repaying it all: all the State could do was to pay the interest out of taxation. It remained indebted to private rich men for the principle, that is the whole original sum, and meanwhile, through further wars, this hold of the rich men upon all the rest of the community perpetually increased.”
Countries with vast natural resources and reserves of gold and foreign currencies, like the United States, can function with massive debts because the banks and bondholders trust them. But countries with no collateral can only borrow more money, for as long as they can.
When countries run out of credit they are reduced to starvation, unless some help is extended. Germany’s national debt was partly written off at the Lausanne Conference in 1932 and again at the London Conference in 1953. The Allies decided that it made more sense to get Germany back on her feet. At least, that way they would get some of their money back. It worked, and Germany cleared her debts as her economy recovered.
In 2000 a Canadian proposal for a debt moratorium was rejected by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but eventually, all national debts will have to be rescheduled, reduced or abolished. Creditors, including private bondholders, insurance companies and pension fund managers, will cling to the present system because they want their money back, but ultimately it’s unsustainable.
My parents came from widely diverse backgrounds, for my Father was a motor car tester, and my Mother was Governess to the children of a very senior army officer, I was born in the summer of 1924, and had a very reasonable education, initially at a state school, and then at ten years of age, to a well respected Grammar School in the Home Counties. At the age of 14, when I was on my way home from School, I came across a poorly dressed old man wheeling a pram on which he had fixed a wind-up gramophone and was playing a recording of a speech by Sir Oswald Mosley, who was addressing his audience as “my Blackshirt brothers”. I listened intently until the record was finished, and then thanked the old man, giving him a penny from my pocket. Arriving home, I explained to my Father what I had heard, and he told me how on one occasion he had gone up to London to make trouble at a Mosley meeting, but he had been so impressed that he had finished up cheering his support. I remember that. Before I was old enough to follow my Father’s example, the war was upon us. I was at University, and Sir Oswald and Lady Mosley were in prison under law 18B, together with scores of his senior officers. In fact, I never wore a black shirt myself.
After the war, they were all discharged from prison without being charged, and ‘Union Movement’ was formed. The new party had headquarters at an address in London and produced a newspaper called ‘Action’ with the front emblazoned with the Blackshirt emblem, a circle crossed by one flash, not two as in SS.
By this time I was making regular visits to London on business and would call into the London Office, and chat at length with Mr Raven Thomson, who was Editor of the newspaper. I used to make a contribution now and then to ‘Action’ and kept in touch. We had a group called ‘Friends of Union Movement’, and every now and again would attend a dinner in London, with ‘OM’ as speaker. He always spoke well, and his following was intensely loyal.
Of course, prompted by the Jewish lobby, things were made very difficult. We were obliged to drop ‘The European Salute’, and then the blackshirt emblem. The Home Office declared that the wearing of a black shirt constituted a uniform, and in spite of the fact that OM insisted that wearing the black shirt was merely to identify Party members during a commotion it was banned.
Raven Thomson died from the long-term effects of his brutal treatment during his stay in prison, and OM went to live in Orsay, France.
All these people have left their mark, and although several splinter movements have started up to maintain the creed, none have really been able to rally the public as OM was able to do.
This is not necessarily to do with their inadequacies, but the result of well organised, and Jewish funded publicity blocks that have prevented both reporting and any publicity leaking out, however small.
Once the administration was changed in Germany after the war, OM adopted a slogan “Europe a Nation”, which was his frequent cry. Were he to be here in 2016, he would have been aghast to note that the Jewish lobby is once again running things over there.
When OM retired into France he went there on the basis that eventually he would be called. He never was of course, which is a tragedy, for he would have been a brilliant statesman.
Nevertheless, he always kept his ear to the ground and clearly read the UK papers. This is made clear when some reporter named Peterborough reported on a rowdy meeting in Oxford, that the stewards had dealt with the rowdies as savagely as OM had done at his Olympia meeting. His reply is appended below.
“Sir, a note by Peterborough (May 14th) appears to compare the actions of stewards in defending my meeting at Olympia from attack, with the action of those recently attacking someone else’s meeting at Oxford. The difference is surely clear to any impartial mind.
Facts regarding Olympia are also on public record in contemporary Press reports and are now worth recalling. The attack on a perfectly legal meeting was openly organised and publicised for three weeks in advance, without any intervention of authority to prevent a flagrant breach of the law.
The assault of armed roughs was defeated by our young men who were accused of using their fists too vigorously. Soon after the occasion (the largest public meeting ever held in Britain) at Earls Court Exhibition Hall, was conducted in perfect order. Previously free speech had been systematically denied to anyone unpopular with Communism or the anarchic left. e.g. Sir Winston Churchill’s election meeting in Dundee when he was just out of hospital, reported in the Times under the heading “Mr Churchill shouted down.”
Authority was supine during a period when free speech ceased to exist. This was the origin of the Blackshirt movement, which opponents described as my “private army”. The means to defend ourselves were subsequently removed by special act of Parliament.
It then became more than ever, the duty of Government itself to maintain order, and in this duty, then and now, it conspicuously fails. In agreeing that no man should be allowed a private army, I suggest that Britain needs a Government with the will to maintain order which includes free speech for all. ”
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 01 November 2018 06:55.
American Thinker, “Trump Is the Best President Ever for American Jews”, 1 Nov 2018:
By Karin McQuillan
President Trump’s statement on anti-Semitism the day after the Tree of Life massacre truly was “electrifying.”
The Jews have endured terrible persecution, and you know that we’ve all read it: We’ve studied it. They’ve gone through a lot and those seeking their destruction…we will seek their destruction…Never again.
It touched my heart deeply. Jews have never, but never, been given this kind of whole-hearted support by an American leader before. Trump told the rally-goers in Illinois, slowly, and with great emphasis:
This evil anti-Semitic attack is an assault on all of us. It’s an assault on humanity. It will require all of us, working together, to extract the hateful poison of anti-Semitism from our world. This was an anti-Semitic attack at its worst. The scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored, cannot be tolerated, and it cannot be allowed to continue. We cannot allow it to continue. It must be confronted and condemned everywhere it rears its very ugly head. We must stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters to defeat anti-Semitism, and vanquish the forces of hate – that’s what it is.
Jews have never, but never, been given this kind of whole-hearted backing by an American leader before. Jews are used to facing murderous hate alone. We are not used to words that reflect the moral truth. We’re used to mealy mouthed pieties condemning hate on all sides.
A dear friend who is active fighting anti-Semitism wrote me, “It is the strongest statement in support of Jews ever made by an American president.”
[...]
And now antisemitic murders of Jews have happened in America, on his watch. Trump is putting the evil doers on notice: anti-Semitism will not be tolerated. Anti-Semitism? It’s got to end.
The forces of anti-Semitism are concentrated in four groups of our fellow Americans: white supremacists like the man who murdered the congregants of Tree of Life; the Nation of Islam and our black community, Hispanic immigrants and to a lesser extent, native-born Hispanics, and progressives. Three of these four groups are large, significant voting blocs. All three are crucial to Democrat electoral victory.
For admitting that you really do want to replace us.
All white advocates should salute The New York Times. Week after week, one author after another openly declares his intention to replace us with non-white immigrants. It’s nice to know where we stand, and to know we were right all along.
“When higher rates trigger another recession, Trump can point an accusing finger at the central bank, absolving his own policies of liability and underscoring the need for a major overhaul of the Fed.”
Born in the U.S.Since 2007, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants has declined. Source: Pew Research Center
