Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

“We all want a country that is fairer so that everyone has the chance to succeed. We all want a nation that is safe and secure for our children and grandchildren. We all want to live in a truly Global Britain that gets out and builds relationships with old friends and new allies around the world.” — Rt Hon Theresa May MP

It’s happening

Today is really a day of vindication. Both the detractors on the Eurofederalist side, and the detractors on the disruptive Alt-Right ‘Big Europe’ Russophile side had said that this day would never come and that the United Kingdom would descend into either chaos on the one hand or compromise on the other. 

But to their manifest displeasure this day has indeed come.

The United Kingdom has formally given the EU notification that it intends to leave the bloc.

Sir Tim Barrow, UK ambassador to the EU, handed the written letter to European Council president Donald Tusk today.

The moment that the letter was accepted, the notification to leave was triggered.

The UK now has two years to negotiate an agreement with the 27 remaining EU countries over its future relationship with the bloc.

Theresa May told the House of Commons: “This is an historic moment from which there can be no turning back.”

She made the announcement as Article 50 was formally invoked when the letter Mrs May had signed was received by EU Council President Donald Tusk. She told MPs in the House of Commons this morning that she believes Britain’s “best days lie ahead”.

The Prime Minister said she would work for the “best possible deal” for Britain after Article 50 was formally triggered.

She added: “Now is the time for us to come together to be united across this House and across this country.”

A statement issued by the European Council said the talks would start by focusing on arrangements for an “orderly withdrawal” from the bloc.

The council, pledged to approach the talks constructively and hoped the UK would be a “close partner” after Brexit.

“We regret that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union, but we are ready for the process that we now will have to follow.

“Our first priority will be to minimise the uncertainty caused by the decision of the United Kingdom for our citizens, businesses and member states.”

Who will our key negotiators be?

Over the next two years the United Kingdom and the European Union will attempt to negotiate the details of a potential Brexit deal and shape the possible future of UK-European relations.

The main negotiators for the United Kingdom will be:

David Davis

Sir Tim ‘Deepstate’ Barrow

Oliver Robbins

Article 50 letter

These are the key sections of the Prime Minister’s letter which seem to warrant the most scrutiny:

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the “acquis”) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.

This is what is called colloquially, ‘swallowing the medicine in one gulp’. The acquis communautaire will be repatriated in full into the United Kingdom in one step. After that, it will then be possible for the British parliamentary system to begin to repeal or amend whatever elements of the repatriated acquis communautaire that they feel the need to. It also allows for a smoother exit because the elements of the body of law that do not need to be altered, can be kept in place in the exact way that they are written.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.

 In that section, Theresa May is signalling that she intends to move the United Kingdom toward a more federal structure. This is particularly for maintaining stability, as it is known that there are both internal and external pressures that will be brought to bear to try to break up the United Kingdom in this time of both opportunity and vulnerability.

To avert that possibility, offering greater federalism to the four nations of the United Kingdom will enable the central government to neutralise the soft middle in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.

It also supplies a black-and-white text counter argument which can be waved in the face of outside news organisations, for example RT, who have since 2014 been trying to promote Scottish independence in the hopes that they can weaken London. Scottish independence is something that will never be allowed to succeed.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek.

This is a key difference between her strategy and the strategy that had previously been taken by David Cameron. 

Cameron had made the crucial mistake of signalling that he wanted some kind of deal no matter what, and this emboldened the continental European negotiators on the other side of the table.

Theresa May is making no such mistake. Her statement plays game theory correctly. Theresa May is signalling here that while she would not want to leave the negotiations without a deal, she is actually willing to do so. 

In fact, this, coupled with the last few months of ‘hard Brexit’ media coverage and her statements to the media which reinforced this, place her in a perfect position. The fact that very little is publicly known about what goes on in the inner space of her thoughts also makes it more difficult for continental European negotiators to know how to approach her. She is ‘difficult’, as all students of Geography are, and that is a good thing.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”.

The United Kingdom is maintaining that it will not seek membership of the European single market, because to do so would be to accept ‘freedom of movement’, which the precise thing that Brexit is being initated to escape from.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.

The mention of ‘third countries around the world’ appears in the letter, and is a reference to what Theresa May called ‘the fastest growing export markets’, in her House of Commons statement.

House of Commons statement

The most salient elements of Theresa May’s House of Commons statement I would submit are the following:

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s Commons statement on triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

Because European leaders have said many times that we cannot ‘cherry pick’ and remain members of the single market without accepting the 4 freedoms that are indivisible. We respect that position. And as accepting those freedoms is incompatible with the democratically expressed will of the British people, we will no longer be members of the single market.

We are going to make sure that we can strike trade agreements with countries from outside the European Union too. Because important though our trade with the EU is and will remain, it is clear that the UK needs to increase significantly its trade with the fastest growing export markets in the world.

The ‘fastest growing export markets in the world’ are ASEAN+3 and SAARC in Asia, and the Pacific Alliance in Central and South America.

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s Commons statement on triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interests of all our citizens.

With Europe’s security more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War, weakening our cooperation and failing to stand up for European values would be a costly mistake.

This is a prelude of things to come. It means that what Theresa May is doing is flipping the script on the continental Europeans. Any hesitancy on their part to reach agreement during the economic element of the negotiations will be cast by the United Kingdom as “the European Union backsliding and regressing into protectionism.” It’s a good way to approach it, and it will be infuriating to the continental Europeans. Extra infuriation can be added by comparing the continental Europeans unfavourably to any of the non-European countries which the United Kingdom will also be trying to negotiate trade deals with.

That kind of talking point would take the form of “This other random country here is so eager to uphold the liberal free trade order which has prevailed since the mid-1970s, why aren’t you as agreeable as they are? Just do what we want you to do!”

Gov.uk, ‘Prime Minister’s Commons statement on triggering Article 50’, 29 Mar 2017:

We all want to see a Britain that is stronger than it is today. We all want a country that is fairer so that everyone has the chance to succeed. We all want a nation that is safe and secure for our children and grandchildren. We all want to live in a truly Global Britain that gets out and builds relationships with old friends and new allies around the world.

These are the ambitions of this government’s Plan for Britain. Ambitions that unite us, so that we are no longer defined by the vote we cast, but by our determination to make a success of the result.

We are one great union of people and nations with a proud history and a bright future. And now that the decision to leave has been made – and the process is underway – it is time to come together. For this great national moment needs a great national effort. An effort to shape a stronger future for Britain.

So let us do so together. Let us come together and work together. Let us together choose to believe in Britain with optimism and hope. For if we do, we can make the most of the opportunities ahead. We can together make a success of this moment. And we can together build a stronger, fairer, better Britain – a Britain our children and grandchildren are proud to call home.

I commend this statement to the House.

We’ve all been waiting for this moment for so long. Theresa May has always been by our side.

She’ll make it come true, like she always does.

The YouTube channel N.D.L has put out a new video today, which really captures the sadness of what policing in Sweden must be like now.

Progressive cultural manifestations flourish under the protection of the state, while at the same time the policymakers undermine that same protection by allowing a retrogressive demography to enter and replace the citizens of the country. Additionally, the Anarchist Bloc attacks the police at every turn, exacerbating the instability of the situation.

Sometimes video really does depict it better than text.

The government of Stefan Lofven really has the same kind of haplessness and incompetence that the government of Harold Wilson had. I’m sure that no one truly wishes for this in their heart of hearts—but I think that if the situation should deteriorate to an extent where governance is impossible in Sweden and the electoral system continues to deliver up the wrong result, in such a case I would hope that the Swedish security services have contingency plans on hand to fight the decline in the same way that British services had contingency plans in the 1970s.

Until the last moment.

An important distinction

An article by John Morgan called ‘Alt Right versus New Right’ appeared at Counter-Currents Publishing on 28 Feb 2017. I tend to agree with the things that are written at Counter-Currents more often than I agree with things that are written elsewhere in the European nationalist sphere, and in this case what John Morgan was presenting was a very good article which I think all Majorityrights.com readers should also read.

Here is what I think is the most important excerpt:

John Morgan / Counter-Currents Publishing, ‘Alt Right versus New Right’, 28 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

[...]

I understand that, given all the media attention it’s been receiving lately, there’s a temptation to adopt the term “Alt Right” universally. I, however, insist on viewing the Alt Right as something exclusively American, and the New Right as something particularly European.  

One thing that the two movements certainly share is a difficulty in determining what exactly they are. Especially in the hands of the mainstream media, “New Right” and “Alt Right” are two terms that have been used to refer to everything ranging from Tea Party-style populism to outright neo-Nazism, and everything in between, a problem that was inevitable given that neither group has a central authority that can pronounce who is and who isn’t orthodox, we might say, nor even what exactly that orthodoxy is. For my own purposes today, by New Right I mean the current of thought centered upon Alain de Benoist’s GRECE movement in France and its various offshoots since 1968, which represents a towering edifice of thought unparalleled anywhere else on the Right since the Conservative Revolution in Germany of the Weimar era.

The Alt Right is a much trickier animal to pin down. The New Right has produced literally hundreds of books outlining its beliefs and positions over the past half-century. The Alt Right, on the other hand, is a culture primarily of blogs, memes, podcasts, and videos. It has yet to produce a single book or other statement of principles that everyone involved would agree is the quintessence of the Alt Right’s worldview. This is a natural outgrowth of the anti-intellectualism inherent in Anglo-American political and cultural discourse, as opposed to the more innovative and livelier – dare I say superior – Rightist political tradition that you have here on the Continent. In attempting to think of a book that could in any way lay claim to being the Alt Right manifesto, the only thing I could come up with is Greg Johnson’s New Right versus Old Right, which has fortunately been translated into Swedish as well. Otherwise, the shelves of the Alt Right library remain pretty bare, although hopefully that will soon be changing.

[...]

But while the Alt Right and the New Right are coming at the problem of liberalism from similar angles, they do remain divided by several fundamental issues. First and foremost is race. The American Right (just as the American Left, albeit in different ways) is absolutely obsessed with race: evolutionary theories, comparative IQ scores, crime statistics, and the like. In America, this has led to the development of the term “white” to refer to anyone of European descent. [...] However, I do believe that the attempt of some to import this idea of “White Nationalism” into Europe, and who in some cases have even called for political unification between America, Europe, and Russia, is a severe disservice to the diversity inherent in European civilization. The issue for Europe, as the New Right has always understood, is as much based in ethnicity, language, and culture as it is on race. We can’t pretend that an Irishman and a Russian are interchangeable.

[...]

What John Morgan says there about the divergence between the Alternative Right and the New Right strikes me as being completely true and is perfectly in line with the experiences that I’ve had in Europe. 

It is also something that Alain de Benoist has talked about quite a lot. The attempt by Americans to impose their understanding of ethno-racial politics and their propensity to try to effectively obliterate all intra-European differences through imposing their concept of ‘Whiteness’ onto other regions quickly becomes unworkable. It simply lacks the appropriate level of sophistication and that lack stems from the fact that many of the American White nationalists who are generating these ideas, have neither lived in a European country nor held any financial stake in the future of a European country.

Ted Sallis took exception to this in the Counter-Currents comments section, because he is precisely the kind of White nationalist that is being criticised. He responded by asking the following:

Ted Sallis, comment 1381496, 28 Feb 2017 wrote:

“We can’t pretend that an Irishman and a Russian are interchangeable. ”
 

That canard again. I want to know – who says that? Who believes it? Who advocates that? If ethnonationalists don’t want to be viewed as fundamentally dishonest then you guys really need to stop making the most absurd strawman arguments.

By asking those questions, he was basically trying to force John Morgan to either go around looking up examples of people who he knew were doing it but which he did not have ready to hand, or to retract his whole argument.

Morgan responded:

John Morgan, comment 1381497, 28 Feb 2017 wrote:
 

I’ve heard such rhetoric from many people on the Alt Right. Specifically here, however, I’m thinking particularly of ideas that Richard Spencer has outlined in the past.

To which Sallis fired back:

Ted Sallis, comment 1381545, 01 Mar 2017 wrote:

If Spencer ever advocated such interchangeability, I’d like a quote. In my 20+ years of activism, always with a strong pan-European focus, I’ve only encountered one – one! – person who advocated any sort of “homogenizing” of Europeans – that was Hoffmeister in the introduction to Lowell’s book (and I critiqued him for that on this blog). And even Hoffmeister (insofar as I know) doesn’t believe these groups are the same, he just advocated their intermarriage. If Spencer suggested that all Europeans are the same, I would denounce that also. But don’t pretend or imply that those all people who advocate for a “Big Europe” idea actually believe such nonsense. It is factually incorrect, and its offensive.

One could just as easily look at ethnonationalist squabbling among Slovaks, Hungarians, and Romanians, or the Balt animus toward Russia, and accuse ethnonationalists of all supporting intra-European conflict.

At this point I decided to jump in, because I actually had the answer to Sallis’ aggressive questioning. It’s a slightly lengthy comment but I’ll reproduce it in full nonetheless:

Kumiko Oumae, comment 1381582, 01 Mar 2017 wrote (emphasis added):

There are some people who are essentially doing that. I can think of two offhand, Richard Spencer has been doing it in a subtle way, and Constantin von Hoffmeister has also been doing it in a completely explicit way.

Here’s an example of Spencer doing it in a podcast on 19 Dec 2015: http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2015/12/19/trump-putin-and-the-future-of-the-white-world

Again, Spencer doesn’t explicitly do it, he just establishes the kind of framework which could lead a person to arrive at those conclusions. He does acknowledge in the podcast that the ‘unity’ he is talking about is a long shot.

Here’s an example of Hoffmeister doing it in an interview on Stark Truth Radio on 28 Feb 2017: http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=3913

In that interview Hoffmeister actually calls for ‘an alliance of Berlin, Moscow and Tel Aviv’. He repeats it three times and seems to have no self-awareness about how a large percentage of listeners will regard him and that savagely obscene idea with the utmost horror and revulsion.

And Hoffmeister had also appeared at Identitarian Ideas IX, on 25 Feb 2017: https://altright.com/2017/02/27/identitarian-ideas-ix-rising-from-the-ruins-2/

Hoffmeister’s appearance at that venue seems to show that he is no longer totally the half-joke and half-eccentric figure that he was apparently seen as in the 2006 – 2009 period. It wouldn’t be impossible that his ideas might have some currency with some people in the Alt-Right.

A scan of comments sections often will also show random commenters affirming those kinds of views, and they seem to have received a renewed – albeit still limited – push since the emergence of Russian Active Measures which strove to amplify certain aspects of the Alt-Right message that the Russian state assessed to be useful to cultivating a social support for their energy interests in Europe. By amplifying the parts of Alt-Right ideology they agree with, or inserting themselves into identitarian movements, or by simply funding organisations, Russia has been able to shape some of the contours of these social movements in ways that could be conducive to their interests.

John Morgan’s article was really good, I think, he is on to the truth. Morgan may or may not have had quotes or specific podcast links immediately to hand when he was writing his article – after all, not everyone has browser bookmarks as beautifully organised as myself – but his sense of the situation wasn’t wrong. This is a thing.

The people who believe in the ‘Big Europe’, often tend to also assert that anyone who disagrees with them is ‘in favour of intra-European conflict’ or something like that. But actually on a basic level the ideas propagated by those who believe in a so-called ‘Big Europe’ – by which it is understood as a ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’ concept – are the ideas that really are promoting an intra-European conflict because the persons promoting them must know on some level that Britain specifically will be dramatically opposed to any such thing.

What do I mean by that? Well, no one ever tries to utter the phrase ‘London to Vladivostok’, and I think we all know why they do not say that. It’s because they know that they cannot. At the end of the day, people do quietly understand that Britain’s geostrategic and geoeconomic interests are to strive against allowing any single power to control access to the transit lanes and the mineral and energy resources of Central Asia, navigation across and around the Baltic area, the strategic depth of the Visegrad countries, or the natural resources of Siberia. The legacy of the Great Game, the Crimean War, and the First World War’s covert and semi-covert theatre in Central Asia trace the contours of that fascinating phenomenon.

Another factor which has not been considered by many people, is that the advent of ‘Brexit’ which will be implemented sometime in the next thirty days, will further unshackle Britain from the continent, and thus unshackle Britain from the (relatively speaking) moderating effect that European institutions suffused with Franco-German stakeholders have previously exerted on British policy toward Russia. In other words, Brexit will not herald a softening of British policy toward Russia, but rather it will herald a sharpening of British policy against Russia.

It is ironic that many of the same people who supported ‘Big Europe’ also gave moral support to ‘Brexit’ (and thus they accidentally supported #GlobalBritain!), because these things are totally opposed tendencies. Britain was asked to choose between the continent and the sea, and it chose the sea again, as it absolutely had to. And there’s nothing wrong with that, that is an integral part of the identity of the British people as a seafaring trading nation with ‘historical connections’ to Central, South and East Asia.

In summary: For people to call for ‘an imperium from Lisbon to Vladivostok’ or ‘a Euro-Siberian imperium’ as Hoffmeister does, is effectively the same as those persons announcing an intent to have conflict with a whole laundry list of countries who will of course disagree with it, namely, all the countries which would have to be unwillingly dragged into such an arrangement, as well as offshore balancers like the British who would rightly see their interests being threatened by any such suggestion.

‘Big Europe’ is also a maximum autistic LARP which is open for exploitation by Gazprom, because the concept doesn’t intersect with realities on the ground and ends up functioning as a mere cheerleading squad for the Kremlin. It additionally seems to want to include large swathes of land in the so-called ‘RFE’ that are not even inhabited by Europeans to begin with.

Greg Johnson told me it was a good response, saying:

Greg Johnson, comment 1381651, 02 Mar 2017 wrote:

Thank you. This is an excellent comment.

And it really is excellent, if I do say so myself.

Ted Sallis was of course having none of that. His rebuttal to the fact that his precious ‘Big Europe’ from ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’ had just been been branded a ‘maximum autistic LARP’, was to respond with the absolute classic: “no, you!” It could be said that all of history’s best ethnic wars start this way:

Ted Sallis, comment 1381611, 01 Mar 2017 wrote:

No, your insane Asian imperialism of Silk Road White Nationalism is the LARP that we should all beware of, for autistic Asiaphiles selling out to the inscrutables of Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul. We do not need Russian-hating Japanese dictating to Europeans what our relationships to each other should be.

Britain’s “geostrategic” interests helped lead to two World Wars that lost them their empire, wrecked the White world, and led to the colonization of Britain and the rest of Europe by the Third World. It’s high time that the British stop applying 19th and early 20th century strategies to a 21st century world.

And, yes, by the way, I’m a Big Europe person who was enthusiastically in favor of Brexit, since the EU is the perfectly inverse mirror image of what a sane Big Europe would be like. The EU is monstrous, not because European cooperation and collegial feeling is bad, but because it is a vehicle for globalist aspiration (which the government of Britain and all other Western European nations also is).

“the British people as a seafaring trading nation with ‘historical connections’ to Central, South and East Asia.”

Right…Britain should make common cause with Asians against Europe so as to please Asian imperialists who covet the Russian Far East. Sorry, I do hope the British people don’t fall for that Asiatic swindle.

I suppose this is what the time period 1854 to 1917 was like, at least in terms of rhetoric. Some may see that time period as being a kind of hell, others may see it as heaven, but whichever it is, we are going there; it’s geographically predetermined.

Also, Ted Sallis obviously just hates me, doesn’t he? He seems to regard me with a special kind of hatred and I don’t even know where it’s coming from, because as far as I know I never actually did the things that he is constantly accusing me of all over the internet.

I’ll use this article as an opportunity to address a wide cross-section of the issues that he keeps raising. As such I’ll be responding not only to the specific comment that he made, but to a selection of things that he’s said about my stances over the past eighteen months on his site as well, since there is considerable overlap.

Not ‘dictating’ and not ‘seducing’

Ted Sallis, comment 1381611, 01 Mar 2017 wrote:

[...] We do not need Russian-hating Japanese dictating to Europeans what our relationships to each other should be.

[...]

I don’t have any desire to ‘dictate’ anything to any Europeans. I simply offer my ear in sympathy and solidarity and I make suggestions that I think are good suggestions. At no point do I demand anything. I don’t even take that tone. My views at their strongest are merely firm recommendations. Sallis has previously suggested – or at least strongly implied – on his blog that I go around ‘seducing’ people into doing or saying what I want them to. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no ‘Asian woman privilege’. To imagine that it is so would be completely delusional and paranoid. I know that popular media makes it look like we tend to gain automatic admittance to any venue on the basis of charm alone and then destroy the place, but I can assure you that in reality it doesn’t quite work that way. It would be fun if it did work that way, though.

So let’s dispel these fictions.

If Asians had the fantastically manipulative social powers that Sallis constantly claims we have on his blog, then either the Chaebol-preferred candidate Jeb Bush or the Keidanren-preferred candidate Marco Rubio would have attained the GOP nomination, whereas the Mossad-preferred candidate Donald Trump would have been blocked from entry. In such a scenario the GOP also would have somehow come under the sustained lobbying sway of what are actually weak Asian lobbies in the United States. And if either Jeb or Rubio then happened to fail against Hillary, then it would have simply been a Hillary Clinton presidency, in which the status quo would continue but at least the Iran JCPOA deal would not have come under threat, and existing global problems would somehow not have been made worse by Americans choosing to conform themselves to Israeli policy preferences on the subject of Iran.

There is no perfect solution because the United States is basically political hell, but one at least does what one can. Trump was the least-preferred candidate for Asian interests.

Some of course may be asking what right I have to say anything about American politics, a question that White nationalists like to hotly ask me whenever I give my opinion on anything that they have done. The answer is that what happens in America affects everyone.

All of the candidates were unacceptable in some way, but they existed and could not be wished out of existence or wished into a form that was different from what they were. Thus, it was necessary to prioritise what policy preferences were most important and do triage on that basis. This could not be done merely on the basis of statements uttered on the campaign trail, but rather, the network of institutions and people who the candidate is enmeshed with or beholden to, as well as the family and blood connections of the candidate also had to be seen as indicative of what that candidate may be likely to do if elected.

The priorities looked something like this:

1. Maintaining the Iran JCPOA Deal,
2. Passing the TPP,
3. Taking decisive moves against North Korea’s nuclear ambitions,
4. Attenuating and disrupting Russian/Gazprom gains in Eastern and Central Europe,
5. Incentivise the de-linking French industry from Russia by passing TTIP,
6. Stopping the construction of further Israeli settlements and thus disrupting the American-Israeli relationship,
7. Locking down Europe’s southern border and boxing in ISIL,
8. Disrupting Turkish-American cooperation,
9. Maintaining the US-imposed sanctions against Russia ‘until the Ukraine crisis is resolved’ (ie, until whenever), so as to alter the patterns of international investment in Russia in a way that forces sections of Russian territory to become economically reliant on China, and thus, structurally tame and subordinate Russia to China.

To focus in on the top priority, which is maintaining the Iran deal, the reasons for desiring that the deal be maintained are as follows:

1. It would allow Iran the ability to safely and reliably vend more of its gas to European countries, which offsets Russian energy preponderance. Since Russian energy preponderance is one of the key mechanisms that Russia uses for political leverage in Europe, having Iran on tap as the alternative would serve to erode Russian power in Europe.
2. Allowing Iran to trade with the rest of the world, allows the rest of the world to invest in sectors of the Iranian economy that are starved for cash and innovation, and could potentially have structural effects that empower local moderates as Iran shifts away from the isolated command model of economy over time.
3. Eases the economic relationships between Central and Eastern European countries, and Iran, which is a net good for trade because part of China’s OBOR will run through Iranian territory. The OBOR is the key link which offers a physical high speed connection between the East Asian supply chain network on the one hand, and the European market of consumers on the other.
4a. Enhancing Iranian energy exports would exert downward pressure on energy prices globally, which is good for consumers and bad for rent-seeking oil-despots.
4b. Long-term low prices forces energy services companies and extractors to streamline and innovate their shale operations even more, which reinforces the ‘price cap’, and thus disrupts the cohesion of the effectively Saudi-led OPEC cartel.

Needless to say, the ‘Donald J. Trump’ option would not satisfy any of those priorities.

Since total withdrawal from the scene would have been pointless, Asian and European lobbyists and donors had to remain engaged in that form of electoral triage and stay close to America during the 2016 election cycle in the hopes that the outcome could be shaped in a way that is least disadvantageous to the participants. 

It is possible to model projections on the basis of past signals at previous cycles, combined with the new inputs that had arisen in the 2016 cycle and from that, it could be possible to construct a strategy for that situation. The past signals come from polls and social sciences studies which give people insight into how different cohorts in American society respond to various stimuli when elections are on. Consider it a form of electoral bandlimiting.

But there’s a problem. The Heisenberg–Gabor limit. All real-world signals are timelimited.

Wikipedia, ‘Bandlimiting > Bandlimited versus timelimited’:

A bandlimited signal cannot be also timelimited. More precisely, a function and its Fourier transform cannot both have finite   support. This fact can be proved by using complex analysis and properties of Fourier transform. [...]

One important consequence of this result is that it is impossible to generate a truly bandlimited signal in any real-world situation, because a bandlimited signal would require infinite time to transmit. All real-world signals are, by necessity, timelimited, which means that they cannot be bandlimited. Nevertheless, the concept of a bandlimited signal is a useful idealization for theoretical and analytical purposes. Furthermore, it is possible to approximate a bandlimited signal to any arbitrary level of accuracy desired.

A similar relationship between duration in time and bandwidth in frequency also forms the mathematical basis for the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.

To make a long story short, there is an extent to which all of this is a form of gambling.

It was clear that Donald Trump’s network was the narrowest. Trump’s network was basically a collection of Israelis, real estate developers and construction companies, and former Goldman Sachs employees.

The other candidates were much more multifaceted in terms of who they were allowing to influence them, and this would mean that in the case of the other candidates, there would be a greater chance for more diverse donors and lobbyists to exert influence to counteract whatever Israeli influence might be aimed at them.

From that perspective, it made sense to throw as many resources as possible against Donald Trump’s campaign once it became apparent that he could be a serious contender, and to support others in their efforts to signal against Donald Trump’s candidacy.

But it didn’t work out.

What actually happened in the end of course was that no one, absolutely no one was able to prevent Trump from winning everything. As a result of Trump winning, Israel was able to walk away with basically all the prizes. More prizes than they’ve ever had before. It was the worst possible outcome.

So this gameplan that Sallis is accusing Asians of trying out on America, is a gameplan which didn’t even work, did it?

Asian state actors may or may not have literally come in and stacked Federal Reserve Notes to the roof at the US Chamber of Commerce, networked with the CATO Institute and many others on trade issues, while private citizens may or may not have gone around the other side of the right-spectrum and leveraged the ideological components of the HBD/ethnopluralist movement to raise Asian social status through repeatedly publicising the stories of academic high achievers – and then after all was said and done and spent, White Americans still got up, declared that Asian producer nations were somehow ‘the problem’, filed into the voting booths, and voted for the anti-Asian candidate: Donald Trump.

Misplaced emphasis?

The hyperventilating emphasis that Sallis places on exhorting White nationalists to combat Asian diaspora lobbies and the home nations, seems very strange to me, given that our primary opponent is not White people. The number one threat to the East Asian post-war success story is a United States and/or a Russian Federation which is controlled preponderantly by the state of Israel’s lobbyists.

Our number one opponent in actual reality is Israel.

Every time an Asian takes aim at the Israel lobby for whatever motive, people like Sallis end up jumping in the way to unintentionally shield the Israelis because some White nationalists tend to think it’s aimed at White people. For example, when someone engages in industrial targeting against companies which are controlled by people with blatantly Jewish names, people like Sallis who are in the anti-Asian camp always show up to sound the alarm by protesting about ‘the Asian takeover’. Americans and Russians inadvertently end up defending many of the existing Jewish Zionist oligarchs in their own countries from the machinations of everyone else’s oligarchs.

Everything really hinges around what people’s priorities are. Is your priority to defend the structural integrity of the propositional nation called ‘the United States’ or ‘the Russian Federation’ or whatever? Or is your priority to counteract the power of the Jewish lobby which is firmly entrenched in those two locations above all else? The answer cannot realistically be ‘both’. Choose one.

Or to put in the bluntest terms, are you primarily anti-Semitic, or are you primarily pro-‘Big Europe’ and pro-America?

At Sallis’ blog I have actually seen him claim that the outworking of Asian interests are – in his view – a ‘greater longterm threat’ to White people than the outworking of Jewish interests are.

It is frankly amazing to me that he could arrive at that conclusion.

Also, he has repeatedly mischaracterised what I have meant by ‘collaboration’. By ‘European and Asian collaboration’ I have only meant moving toward the kind of détente where we agree to maintain the presently-existing trade and investment arrangements and that ethnonationalists on both sides should refrain from taking up protectionist stances and that both sides should avoid stoking communal tensions in their publications. I have never asked for anything else. It’s a request that didn’t even require White people to do or change anything, since that is a status quo position anyway.

If someone said that it was anything beyond “don’t step on each other’s toes if you can help it”, then such a person is wrong, or is overly-enthusiastic.

At any rate, a lot of the ‘harder’ stuff that I say to people about geoeconomic issues is done low key and non-publicly (as those people who receive the occasional email from me could attest to), I only have to defend myself like this if I’m basically accused directly of something, as Sallis keeps doing.

So here we go!

Sallis refers to my stance as being effectively ‘Asian imperialism’, but it remains a mystery as to where this ‘imperialism’ actually is. Accusing me of ‘British imperialism’ would be a misnomer too, but at least that would sound a bit more coherent with respect to what I’ve actually been writing, given that what I’m saying is all cast within the already-presently-existing British framework anyway. Or is he accusing me of promoting both Asian and British ‘imperialism’ at the same time? I think he needs to define his terms, since I don’t know what definition of ‘imperialism’ he is using. ‘Imperialism’ as contrasted with what?

If I sell you a basket of products and then spend the money to improve our standing in the world, that is not ‘imperialism’. Also, even if it were ‘imperialism’, what difference at this point would it make? Next Sallis would be telling me that the fact that I continue to breathe oxygen is objectively bad in and of itself.

Obviously from my perspective, if my breathing oxygen is ‘imperialist’ and anti-Russian, then I had better keep being ‘imperialist’ and anti-Russian, because oxygen is pretty sweet! Obviously no one could reasonably expect that either myself or the Britons would feel any kind of guilt about that. We can only step over it. It would do nothing to change the present situation on the ground, which is what it is.

My stance simply boils down to speaking against economic protectionism, and guaranteeing the gains that were accrued after 1991 at the end of the Cold War and the economic defeat of the USSR. The new order which manifested after 1991, when the frontiers of Muscovy were mercifully rolled back on all sides by over fifteen thousand miles, became an order focussed on deepening global supply chains so as to cut costs while also battling the ‘loose ends’ of radical Islamic terror and migration crises.

It is possible to attend to those above issues while also being aware of the racial issue: which is that the nation-state is the richest and most developed repository of historical experience and governmental best-practices, and furthermore it is the surest source of inner motive energies (call it ‘EGI’) which motivate people to fight and to strive for a better seat at the table and a brighter day in the sun.

Sallis dislikes the supposed ‘inscrutables’ of ‘Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul’ (and presumably New Delhi and the rest too), but how inscrutable can it be? It’s transparent that people do not want to be subjected to trade policies and foreign policies that are crafted by people in North America who seem to want to pretend that all North America’s problems are coming from Asia in the form of molded plastic and semiconductors.

The idea that Britain should conform its foreign policy to satisfy those very American concerns also doesn’t make any sense, since European states have legitimate interests that do not mesh with those of the United States. It’s way past time that people should continue to pretend that the United States has identical geostrategic and geoeconomic interests as European states do, much less that the different European states all have identical interests.

A thing America actually now did

I mean let’s be real, the Americans just somehow non-ironically elected a guy who came out with a speech 120 hours ago where he advocated what? This hilarious list:

a. 54 billion more drunkenly spent on defence spending targeted at nothing,
b. 1 trillion more for infrastructure spending for inner city no-go zones which will have pitiable return on investment,
c. More o’ dem social programmes for the poor baby Trayvons in Detroit who lost their jobs – despite them never having had a job – to the allegedly ‘bad bad’ people in Manila or ‘bad bad’ people in Ho Chi Minh City who are apparently ‘ripping’ you, because why? Because of course. Apparently according to Hunter Wallace, African-Americans are now more valuable to the Alt-Right than trade with Asian states is, so what the hell.
d. Free cash-money for Israel. Because Trump just loves Israel. Because his family is married into it. All of them will continue to studiously ignore that tendency.

So there I was, watching that mortifying clown-car of super-horrible policies unpacking itself into the international arena and I was asking – while I was drinking white rum directly from the bottle – a single question. Only one question.

“But Bernie—I mean, Trump, how are you planning to actually pay for any of this stuff, fam?”

The answer arrived shortly thereafter! The ‘answer’ is apparently:

a. Doubling-down on protectionist tariffs and incoherent ‘buy American’ sloganeering to socially reinforce it, a move which depends on the absurd and not-ever-happening idea that Asian economies will passively allow the United States to subject them to a tariff regime designed by Gary Cohn which would literally grab money out of Asian financial centres and reroute it back into the treasury of the Zionist Occupation Government,
b. Lower taxes on American people, 
c. Lower taxes on American corporations, 
d. Every American gets a tax refund to pay for medical care to replace the ACA.

Hmm! But that’s okay perhaps, since certain commodities stocks have spiked up since 09 November 2016, and maybe if the markets reorder themselves around that, those positions can continue to grow. People can make instruments which tap into that expansion, and then people and the state itself can borrow against those instruments using some very fancy mathematical formulas to predict their performance. Detroit and other Rust Belt disaster zones will somehow magically be rebuilt, and the African-Americans will somehow crank out billions of widgets while somehow not being at all socially-dysfunctional, so that all of the big spending will totally somehow pay for itself. The formulas may or may not have documentation associated with them. The formulas may or may not even be based in any kind of rational thought. Your children can then repay the money to Goldman Sachs about 35 years from now. And all of that is to be done so that the allegedly heroic America can finally defeat the allegedly undead East Asia.

Wow, right? Really very much wow. I mean the whole Trump-style plan has literally never failed before except for like every single time ever.

I guess you could say that I disagree with the Israel-backed Trumpist manchild plan, because my geopolitical stances are all anti-Semitic in one way or another. You could say that I disagree with the Israel-backed Trumpist manchild plan because I am of course an Asian woman, which is another factor that makes me very scary and perhaps ‘evil’. But I’ve never lied or swindled about anything in that regard.

Separate destinies

Theresa May is the polar opposite of Donald Trump on those issues, and thank goodness she is the polar opposite. No false appeals by the usual suspects to ‘the White race’ and its supposed ‘unity’ are going to induce the British to make common cause with the American economic-protectionist suicide pact against their own interests, because – frankly – the British public are on average simply savvier than their American counterparts, just enough so to have deftly evaded the protectionism con-game, and to have correctly supported Brexit at the same time.

Of course, there are some Trump-supporters out there who would say that this entire article could be summarised as being ‘an example of what the siren-song of globalisation sounds like’, but those people are not even capable of rigor in their analysis of anything because they’ve become ensnared by Donald Trump’s cult of personality and cannot help but senselessly parrot every one of his forced memes.

I’m incredibly optimistic about Britain because everything the British people are doing recently is just great, and the interests being expressed in these isles are legitimate. 

I will therefore reiterate: Britain was forced to choose between the continent and the sea, and Britain chose the sea again. And there’s nothing wrong with that, that is an integral part of the identity of the British people as a seafaring trading nation with historical connections to Central, South and East Asia.

If people such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel don’t understand this, it is only because it is not in their national interest to try to understand it. But there is no reason why anyone should be held hostage to their trade preferences.

Those who continue to oppose Britain will continue to do so no matter what we say. But the ways in which they do so will become increasingly subtle. It is one thing to have continental European or American allies – alliances imply cooperation between distinct groups – but it is absolutely a different thing entirely to have these people actually as part of our own groups, browbeating us because we won’t bend our knee to the Kremlin, Berlin, or Washington DC. Letting opponents of Britain shape the contours of how Britain should express its national interests is not ‘European racial solidarity’, it is subversion by hostile foreign groups whose interests do not align with Britain’s.

It is perhaps no coincidence that Britain’s opponents are fully engaged in concern-trolling about supposed Asian ‘swindlers’ in Britain in the aftermath of Brexit, because Brexit is apparently not enough for the American and Russian concern-trolls. It is however quite enough for the British people who wisely voted to block the mass migration of Arabs and North Africans via the European Union into Britain, but are quite sensibly not willing to burn down the entire civil society and economy of Britain just to pointlessly antagonise Asians because some American or German or Russian enemy asked them to do so in the name of a non-existing ‘European solidarity’.

You have to wonder if these people even understand what Brexit means. Do they know? It means ‘British Citizens Politely Exiting From Your Actual Disaster Zone’. It is literally the opposite of ‘solidarity’. There is no solidarity, nor should there be any solidarity in the present circumstances.

Necessary trade

Free trade and the economic integration of Britain and the East is not an ‘Asiatic swindle’ as Sallis would allege, but rather, it is regions of the world exchanging goods and securing the world’s most important transit zones, for mutual benefit. It is a dividend arising from of forty years of work which was done by the previous generation of actors, and which we in the present have inherited.

Our motives can be expressed in the material realm in a transactional way, and as such this expression eliminates the uncertainty that would accompany idealistic or sentimental reasons.

For British Asians in the Brexit environment, our lives and our property are bound up with the fortunes and the flag of Great Britain, so it is only natural that we would stand with Britain against any and all opponents. We are not ‘loyal’ for just some kind of sentimental reasons alone. We are ‘loyal’ because everyone appreciates that Britain will now be well-placed in a secure position to participate more than ever in the ongoing process of global development in the places that need it most.

Furthermore, Brexit would not be economically viable for Britain without the maintenance and expansion of trade relationships with growth regions in Asia to fill the void left by Britain’s departure from the European Common Market. The precise way in which that will manifest is presently a ‘blank page’ with a title heading over it in the Brexit plan, but the correct way of looking at the concept of there being a ‘blank page’ with a title heading over it is to recognise that as an opportunity for people to write something mutually edifying there.

What is this?

Donald Trump’s increasingly roulette-like to-do list has now delivered up the latest ‘event’. Donald Trump will be addressing the US Congress today on Wednesday 0200 UTC (Tuesday 2100 EST). This is not a ‘State of Union Address’, because as a new president it is not expected that Donald Trump would yet know what the status of the United States is. For this reason it is customary that although a US President can call for a ‘State of the Union’ address at any time he wants, no president other than Dwight D. Eisenhower has ever called such an address in his first year.

As such, Trump’s address to the US Congress today should be understood as being an address, but not a ‘State of the Union’ address.

What should you look for?

When he addresses lawmakers from the Senate and the House, Trump will likely talk about tax cuts, and tax reform, regulatory adjustments, his plans for job creation, the construction of the border wall with Mexico, the abolition of the Affordable Care Act, and other issues, if White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer is to be believed. Spicer also added that the supposed theme of the address is going to be “the renewal of the American spirit.”

I can’t wait to see the kind of vacuous nonsensical stream-of-conscious word-salad which will be deployed across the lectern in search of a meaning, once Trump actually starts ad-libbing in the middle of his own speech as he so often tends to do.

In terms of the substance of his speech, I’m expecting that it will be in the combined tradition of Madison Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower – which is to say, a crybully session in which people will be entreated to ‘discover’ that all of the problems of White and Jewish Americans and Israeli Jews, all the problems that they have, are somehow to be blamed on Asians and Mexicans.

Aside from that, I think there should be a short list of things to watch for in this speech.

1. Which pledges does he remember to mention, and which does he quietly drop?

The White House has said that the first half of the president’s speech should focus on his campaign promises, and which ones he has been able to honour so far. I’d suggest that you should keep on hand – which is to say, keep in right in your hand on your tablet – the Washington Post’s tracker of the 60 key promises which Trump made to his constituents. By looking at what makes it into the speech and what does not, you might be able to discern what his emphasis is, or perhaps promises he’s demoted to a lesser priority or even abandoned.

2. Does he appear under pressure and agitated, or is he calm and confident?

Donald Trump is strongly influenced by Norman Vincent Peale, and a key to understanding his psychology is to understand Peale. If you don’t already know of that horrendous individual, I’m sad to say that you won’t have the time to get all briefed up on it before the speech airs, because it’s a whole tangled mess of nonsense which takes at least six hours to get familiar with.

What to watch for is his facial expression in tandem with his ‘off script’ moments, since the key to understanding his ‘off script’ moments is that they are spoken to himself and not to the audience. The audience can either choose to opt in or not, but his little utterances like “so true”, and “we are going to win bigly”, are as much for his own autohypnotic benefit as they are for providing a repetitive touchstone for his audience to engage in the same autohypnotic self-reassurance.

Another pattern that is clearly observable is Trump’s willingness to transform personal disputes into grand narratives which are then inserted ad-lib into his speeches. Anyone or anything that he chooses to go off script to mention for criticism, is going to be something that he is actually worried about in some way.

US Presidents also often tend to use opportunities when addressing the US Congress to define and signal against state or non-state actors that they view as adversaries. The time is generally not used to define or confront domestic political targets. Yet it it likely that he will do so.

The thing therefore to watch for, is whether he gets pre-occupied on targeting domestic political targets and ends up constraining or limiting the time he spends describing or explaining his foreign policy stances. The ratio of time spent will tell us perhaps not a lot about the direction of the whole administration, but it will tell us more about where Trump’s mind as ‘Commander in Chief’ is most focussed.

3. Law and Order?

His attitude toward his own constituents will be most perceived through the stances he takes on law and order issues, which form a large part of why his supporters backed him during the electoral campaign. The question is whether he will dignify them with adult explanations of the challenges that lie ahead, or whether he will stick with the sloganeering he has used so far.

A big signal to watch for is if he devotes this time to attacking ‘the press’ in sweeping generalised terms. If he does this, it should be interpreted as a sign that he is still in campaign mode, and that in fact, he may be planning to keep doing that because he is already looking toward the election campaign of 2020.

Expect the topics – if he chooses to treat the audience as adults – to be ranging among counter-terrorism, his Muslim countries immigration ban which curiously omits Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates and which he is planning to reintroduce with new wording, his attempts to deport undocumented Mexican migrants, the border wall, increased military spending or an end to the sequester, supporting the ‘blue lives matter’ phenomenon, and so on.

4. Addressing divisions?

Will he try to placate the demographic groups who are opposed to his presidency? Or will he ignore them?

Crucially, watch for him to try to reach out to African-Americans. There is a real chance that he will do that, because that is a ‘safe’ move. African-Americans are the most disorganised and least politically coherent group in the United States and it would be seen as a ‘great PR’ move which he would be able to execute at no actual political cost to himself.

He’d simply be getting criticism from the Alt-Right for it, a demographic group which he knows will support him no matter how much he spits on their faces, because they made memes for him and campaigned for him for free. They did it for free.

More crucially, it will be instructive to watch for how Donald Trump will address the accusations that he has not deterred supposed ‘anti-Semitic’ behaviour among his supporters. Trump may take this opportunity to respond by once again putting the Alt-Right under the bus, a move which again will come at no cost to himself, because the Alt-Right will still continue to support him after he does that.

Watch Twitter if you begin to see this happening during the speech, and you might even be able to see the Alt-Right live-Tweeting its own shameful cuckholdry. You could also look at the live thread on Daily Stormer to see the same cuck phenomenon take place.

I’m not saying it’s guaranteed to happen. I’m just saying it’s very likely to happen. There are a lot of variables in play.

5. Nonsensical Anglo-Saxon outreach?

Trump may try to make some kind of absurd outreach to Britain by trying to once again make a verbal connection between the social phenomenon which got him elected in the United States, and the phenomena which led to ‘Vote Leave’ being the outcome in the EU referendum in Britain in 2016.

If he makes this outreach, it should be interpreted as a sign of his weakness, as it would be a signal that he feels that he need to lean on the existence of a non-existent ‘club’.

Brexit, which gave rise to #GlobalBritain, is economically the complete and total opposite of #MAGA, and that is the most important sphere of reality which decides almost everything. Any attempt to link the two is really just an attempt of the latter to grasp the coattails of the former.

They share nothing.

6. Paul Ryan’s face and hands?

It should be possible to watch Paul Ryan’s reactions in order to gauge to some extent how far – if at all – Trump strays ‘off script’, as the Speaker of the House has vacillated between sometimes voicing support for the President, sometimes openly disagreeing with him, and occasionally taking the position of refusing to comment when asked about the content of Trump’s tweets.

Any adverse expressions on his face – a face which he will of course be trying to keep as stony and placid as possible throughout the speech if he can possibly do so – and any moments at which he pointedly refuses to clap when the cue comes for him to clap, could be indicative of a serious split between the Republicans in Congress and the White House, or indicative that Trump has simply dived off script in a dramatic way.

Keep in mind that ‘Trump off script’, can also mean ‘Trump actually mouthing neoreactionary things that Steve Bannon gleaned from Curtis Yarvin and then mouthed into Trump’s ear at the last minute before the speech’.

7. Length of the speech?

White House sources indicate that they expect the speech to last between 65 and 80 minutes. If it ends up being significantly shorter or significantly longer than that, then it would signal that something unexpected has happened, and it’ll be up to observers to assess what precisely that was.

Regnery, Spencer, prime umbrellas of (((Alt-Right))) big-tentosphere

Dear Daniel, I’m a reporter at Reveal News, a news service and public radio program in California. Thanks for responding to my Twitter message.

We’re doing some reporting on Richard Spencer and Bill Regnery. I saw the “Richard Thpenther” post on Majorityrights.com, complete with a foto of the 2 of them together, and thought that you could certainly point me in the right direction on some basic factual issues, if you were willing.

So, I’d like to have a conversation. I’m happy to abide by whatever ground rules you set. Here’s my bio, if you’d care to check me out, and my contact info is below. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know how you’d like to proceed.

Looking forward, Lance Williams, Senior Reporter, Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting

Before moving on to detail the discussion that I had with Williams, I want to recap the left-right paradigm as it is conceived for majorityrights platform, since Williams was asking for my perspective on matters and since like everything that I’ve gleaned from academia and niftily re-tooled for our ethnonationlist interests, it has been attacked, no matter how well aimed, how effective and how coherent in those aims. Since I have not been able to overcome this misplaced jealousy, or naivety, bad advice or whatever causes the intransigence of this contentiousness, I must repeat myself.

Recently, I have been challenged again on the concept of left and right that I use. I refuse to back down and shouldn’t back down for the utility and intelligibility of the concept of left and right as I conceive it. It is intelligible, intuitive even, as it underlies patterns of ordinary language use. It only becomes confused and counter-productive as people try to play along with the more “sophisticated” versions (perversions, really) that Jews have spun through media and academia; which the disingenuous or naive have bought into - as they disingenuously/naively see it serving their interests - the more “sophisticated version” puts forth an oxymoronic definition - that the left is synonymous with liberalism - an oxymoron indeed, conceiving a “union” without prerogative of membership inclusion and exclusion; in fact, by this definition, a union would be just the opposite, it is a “union” that would constantly seek the opening of its membership bounds, to never exclude any “scab” as its highest value (to unionize the entire world as members of the union, we can only imagine). The “sophisticated” White response and what the Jews want, what those disingenuous/naively going along with the arrangement of their terms do, is to say, “no, I’m not a leftist, not a liberal, I’m on the right! - and I can prove that I am not a racist. I’m pure, not arbitrarily setting union bounds of my racial group, despite merit or not, I’m basing membership on unassailable, objective facts and merit alone.”

Ironically, this objectivist response underpins liberalism itself, the very form of the affliction against racial and national maintenance.

Naturally, any halfway intelligent and conscientious White, concerned for White EGI, is going to be mortified that Whites are going along with this, as it puts precious, circumspect patterns at risk and frightens-away potential membership for its lack of accountability. The Jews know this and they promote White identity as right wing because they know that it is going to deter group loyalty where it does not have them reacting into headlong disaster - a trap, fighting on supremacist grounds, (hubris) where they literally become the bad guys who get into disastrous conflict with those that should be their allies (some of them White ethno-nationalists, some of them non-White ethno-nationalists) - vilified as subhuman, these ethno-nationalist adversaries (nemesis) are nevertheless able to fight back very well, and greatly damage the EGI authoritatively designated by the right as its cause, as their adversaries have the collective moral high ground in the concept of social accountability. 
 
Of course those disingenuously/naively going along with the right wing, objectivist version of nationalism, are veering toward two dubious premises with regard to any claims of nationalism: 1) Where otherwise nationalism is not something that just comes together by the invisible hand of nature as it is supposed to, then one or a relatively small number of leaders will assert what is the national group and direct it by their authority which 2) Tends toward limited accountability, as their purported merit for the position is the result of sheer factual (gawd given or sheer natural) merit to make assertions of themselves - it “just wound-up that way” as a result of (gawd given or sheer) nature; and again, the same would supposedly hold true with group and national boundaries - they are supposed to hold up basically because of sheer nature (or gawd). It is a tendency to want to de-emphasize social accountability (to want to have unassailable warrant, to ascribe to oneself innocence/to be unburdened of guilt and responsibility); and to see outcomes as a result of one’s sole agency and sheer nature; while minimizing any joint construction and negotiation of those outcomes.

Quite naturally, such a fool’s game as this, bereft of social accountability as it is, and has been, is a sucker’s game that the Jews (and others, but the Jews most importantly) can take advantage of: it is ripe for them to find some White “leaders” and buy them-off or otherwise hoodwink them into leading, in accordance with Jewish interests, the White sheeple - who naively buy into the right wing, objectivist, “that’s the way it isness”, and less the matter of social construction and accountability that would allow them to effectively maintain their group defense, or even individual defense, ultimately - deliberate designation, delimitation of group boundaries, would immediately correspond with a form of unionization (you are in the union or you are not); an idea underlying any considered concept of “Left.” Whereas the disingenuous and naive go along with the Jewish arrangement of the terms, i.e., that “the left” means unionization only for non-Whites and those antagonistic to White men and their bounds - a prohibition of unionized boundaries for Whites, this is of course an absurd contradiction for Whites - from their end, it is liberalism: a prescription to rupture would-be unionized boundaries, borders, and the social accountability that would facilitate those boundaries and borders by contrast to sheer liberalized mishandling.

Lets pretend for a moment that people are not so retarded as to not be able to understand that and move on.

By contrast, what I have diagnosed as the concept of left nationalism within ordinary language and sustaining a consistent pattern of understanding, making consistent sense, is that: The moment one recognizes the truth by contrast - that we are in interaction, have some social connection and social indebtedness for the origin and maintenance of our manifest form of existence, therefore some responsibility and accountability; further recognizing that we make things together with other people, more or less - more, when we are more obviously responsible for a joint construction and less, but still some, in the agreement of how the more brute facts come to count - we are in the realm of the social and acknowledging the potential for accountability. And once we are in the world of accountability, we are in the world of delimitation, where not just anything goes. We are recognizing social responsibility and then the possibility that we have responsibility more to some than others - more responsibility to those within the “group”, the group designated by consensus and negotiated authority; including responsibility to those deserving of membership but requiring incentive to remain loyal, though they are not on top of the game and ready for higher organizational roles at this time.

In sum, leftism is about recognizing the inextricable reality of interaction, social indebtedness and responsibility, therefore the motion for unionization as a means of accountability and group maintenance, designating out-groups and in groups thereupon, with social accountability as such. Nationalism, ethno-nationalism and racial defense, are a matter of larger scale unions.

Rightism is a motion in its ultimate trajectory toward unassailable warrant in objectivity or divine ordinance, to reduce social accountability through purported objectivity, supra-social principles or divine will. Now, one might object that rightists can be nationalists, or responsive to social needs. What I would say to that is that the moment they are doing that, they are doing a “left thing”, they are going into the social world and its accountability, left nationalism, but without the premises that would solidly ground and sustain group systemic maintenance inasmuch as they retain rightist premises as their ideal and their aim, the lack of accountability thereof; as such, they are primed for subversion by people willing to use the leverage of collaborative agency against them.

Now lets see how this concept played out when I was queried by “RealNews” senior reporter, Lance Williams.

Majorityrights.com

Dear Daniel,

I’m a reporter at Reveal News, a mews service and public radio program in California. Thanks for responding to my Twitter message.

We’re doing some reporting on Richard Spencer and Bill Regnery. I saw the “Richard Thpenther” post on Majorityrights.com, complete with a foto of the 2 of them together, and thought that you could certainly point me in the right direction on some basic factual issues, if you were willing.

So, I’d like to have a conversation. I’m happy to abide by whatever ground rules you set. Here’s my bio, if you’d care to check me out, and my contact info is below.

Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know how you’d like to proceed.

Looking forward.

LW

Lance Williams
Senior Reporter
Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting
1400 65th St. Suite 200
Emeryville, Ca. 94608
https://www.revealnews.org/
office: 510-809-3175
cell: 415-298-2317

Naturally, at this point, I looked at the RealNews outfit’s website, took note of who headed and staffed it, what their basic mission is - obviously very Jewish, very anti-White (pardon the term, as it is misused by those who would misrepresent White ethno-nationalism), very involved in Jewish headed, non-White coalitions, antagonistic to White ethno-nationalism and its necessary alliances.

Reveal News Staff:

First on the list: Colored guy, perhaps mixed Semitc origin:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/aaron-sankin

Aaron Sankin
Reporter
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@asankin
415-786-0793

Second on the list, Jewish guy:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/aaronglantz

Aaron Glantz
Senior Reporter
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@Aaron_Glantz
510-982-2967

Third on the list,

Colored guy, who is apparently often assigned to do the audio interviews:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/al-letson

Al Letson
Reveal Host
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@al_letson
510-809-3160

And on it goes; eventually the list comes to Lance Williams, who requested to talk to us and politely did just that (I don’t know if he’s part Jewish or not, but he clearly doesn’t have a big problem working with them):

https://www.revealnews.org/author/lance-williams/

Lance Williams
Senior Reporter
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@LanceWCIR
510-809-3175

The list goes on like this, apparently having some Whites, obviously liberal, a strong representation of those who are not White males, but it is well over-represented by Jews in its staff and at its leadership.

Executive Director:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/robert-j-rosenthal

Robert J. Rosenthal
Executive Director
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@rosey18
510-809-3162

Chair:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/phil-bronstein

Phil Bronstein
Executive Chair
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Bronstein! I’m not sure if he’s related to Trotsky, but!

Here is what I prepared, and in fact did say to senior reporter Lance Williams of Revealnews:

First, please let me say a few words about Majorityrights’ platform as I’ve taken it, because it will quickly come to the point of how I have developed it as a corrective to the kinds of errors being made by The Regnery circus, NPI, Richard Spencer and the Alternative Right.

Majorityrights (at this point) advocates White/European ethno-nationalisms and sees itself as allied with Asian and Indio ethno-nationalisms. It does not identify with Jewish interests, as if they are White, it treats them as a separate racial category, outside of the White/European race; and, in fact, does not identify with Abrahamic religions at all - seeing them as destructive [providing maps destructive] to ethnonational interests. It does not identify with Nazism or any kind of supremacism or scientism - by scientism, I simply mean the notion that sheer “nature” and “objective” science should decide our course of action without individual and social correctives and cultivation. We are not Alternative Right, not Right wing in any sense as I conceive right and left to be: The right and with it, liberalism, is based on an idea of objectivism which is short on accountability - “because that’s just the way it is according to natural or divine law.” It lends itself to disingenuousness and hubris among elites and to naivety in the masses.

The left - a White Left Nationalism and any ethnonationalism as I hold it to be properly defined, is about accountability to the full social group as maintained through a form of unionization - that puts it in contrast to the universalism and pretenses of objectivity of the right; because there are in groups and out groups - you are in the union or you are not and the union - it looks after your relative interests as a member, not solely because of what is deemed your objective merit. It is a perspective which looks after the rank and file, to ensure that they are treated fairly and have incentive to maintain the union even though they may not be on top of the game or marginalized somehow, to make sure that they do not facilitate scabbing of the union so to speak; but it keeps a particular eye on elites, to hold them accountable to group systemic interests, to make sure that they do not betray us since obviously they are capable of doing the most damage. That concern is bringing us to people like Regnery, Spencer and those in the Alt-Right.

Because they take these right wing positions that we reject, positions which people cannot take or are justifiably afraid of, it turns-off a broad base as it is an incompassionate, insane and stupid position; but in order to try to connect with the mainstream and populism, they are forced to cobble together coalitions upon a tacit agreement to tolerate one another’s anti-social positions as such - whether its holocaust denial or supremacism, some sort of nutty Abrahamic religion; or, what is stigmatic from a White nationalist point of view, acceptance of Jews in their alliance. These cobbled-together anti-social coalitions of the Alt-Right I call the Alt Right tentosphere - a big tent of different tents. Some tents are completely friendly with Jews.

The template of running the gamut from Nazi sympathy to working with Jews and some members actually being Jews is completely consistent with Regnery, his publishing history and what I see as this strategy of Jewish alliance for shepherding masses into this tentosphere of the Alternative Right.

Now, the concept of the Alternative Right goes back to a 2008 article, edited by Richard Spencer, written by Paul Gottfried (who is Jewish); and with it he was trying to counteract the headlong destruction of Whites who could be valuable to Jewish interests and what he calls “Western values”, including Judeo-Christian values as he saw them being destroyed by means of a trajectory from Irving Kristol to the Neo-Cons; a trajectory that did not place enough emphasis on stabilizing enough useful idiots among Whites - the means to keep Whites from reacting too much and to be maintained as useful idiots for Jews was called paleoconservatism - it began with Frank Meyer, a Jewish scholar who shaped Reagan’s so called conservatism: Its not really a whole lot more conservative than the neocons because all it does is maintain capitalism (i.e., maintain a liberal economic system), maintain Judeo-Christianity (which for Whites is liberal - moral liberalism, altruism), pay some lip service to the wonderful culture of the west; while allowing for genetic arguments upon which Whites can survive on an “objective” basis; thus the selection for the relative interests and ways in which these useful idiots will be deployed and intermarry will remain with the Jews as the organizing factor among a right wing elitist cadre.

You’re witnessing that in Trump. But we need to say a bit more before we move onto Trump.

Now then, why do Regnery and Spencer take this position as “Alt-Right” against the quote “Left”? Well, you need to begin with why Jewish interests would want to take a position against the quote, “left.”

Jewish interests have had disproportionate power and hegemonic influence through seven key niches:

1) Media 2) Money and Finance 3) Academia 4) Politics 5) Religion 6) Law and Courts 7) Business and Industry.

Naturally, they don’t want organized peons criticizing, dismantling and taking away that power. So what do they do? Well, of course, they look toward the old faithful sell-outs among the White right-wing elitists - offer them deals in turn for compliance, ease their conscience with the objectivist arguments they’ve always coveted as unassailable warrant, “these are just the facts of life”....and “say, by the way, you’ve got money, want to keep it and have even more, don’t you? You can continue to do well for yourselves ..and you hate those ‘lefties’ anyway, complaining that they want some of that too, so lets organize a coalition, a “movement” to be popularized against the left. ...make it real stylish and edgy ...appeal to those disaffected millennials in their internet bubbles, we’ll call it ‘The Alternative Right”.

Of course now, a major left unit, left union so to speak, would be the union of ethno-nation. And the Jewish and right wing objectivist way to disrupt that unionization is to encourage right wing reactionary populism and its corollary reactionary liberalism.

Now then, again, Majorityrights platform is conceived so that a proper ethno-nationalist view is not buried by the Regnery circus (as our GW aptly calls it), not buried, enmeshed in what it has been doing with The Right and the Alternative Right.

They are only doing quasi ethno-nationalsim as it is perverted through objectivism and coalition with Jewish interests: fighting against social accountability, going along with the Jewish prescription of trying to represent White interests through right wing means.

READ MORE...

It’s really great

Question. What’s the difference between:

• being a pirate running a multi-ethnic drug-ferrying operation to generate money which is kept off-the-books for the financing of covert operations,
• being a mercenary who is paid to attack slave-ships and liberate slaves,
• being a radically forward-deployed coastguard which defends the borders of Britain at the edge of someone else’s shores on extended lines of supply, and
• being a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire?

Trick question. They are all potentially the same thing, and that’s what makes Britain great.

The only people in parliament who seem to have any understanding of this history however, are the people in Theresa May’s wonderful cabinet.

Weaponised history

The difference in opinion between Amber Rudd and Justin Welby is very instructive:

ITV News, ‘Home Secretary faces backlash in parliament for capping lone child refugees’, 09 Feb 2017:

The Home Secretary faced a backlash in parliament after it was announced that the number of lone child refugees coming to the UK will be capped.

Amber Rudd insisted that the move to cap the scheme to just 350 children, far fewer than the 3,000 originally expected, closed to avoid encouraging people-traffickers.

Ministers quietly announced on Wednesday that 200 children had been brought in under the so-called Dubs Amendment and it will close after another 150 are settled in Britain.

[...]

Responding to the Commons, Rudd said: “I am clear that when working with my French counterparts, they do not want us to indefinitely continue to accept children under the Dubs Amendment because they specify, and I agree with them, that it acts as a draw. It acts as a pull.

“It encourages the people-traffickers.”

She also suggested that local authority funding had come into the equation when deciding how many child refugees would be settled under the programme.

[...]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby said he was “saddened and shocked” to learn of the Government’s decision to stop the scheme.

“Our country has a great history of welcoming those in need, particularly the most vulnerable, such as unaccompanied children,” he said.

“Refugees, like all people, are treasured human beings made in the image of God who deserve safety, freedom and the opportunity to flourish.”

He added: “We must resist and turn back the worrying trends we are seeing around the world, towards seeing the movement of desperate people as more of a threat to identity and security than an opportunity to do our duty.

“We cannot withdraw from our long and proud history of helping the most vulnerable.”

The Home Secretary is correct, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is incorrect, as per usual, because Christianity is stupid and will make you become stupid.

The apparently long, proud history of British people ‘helping the most vulnerable’ in a scenario like the one that is presently unfolding in Syria, has only one historical precedent actually, and it is the historical precedent of the West Africa Squadron.

Philanthropic activities

The West Africa Squadron sprung out of the changing economic structural necessities in 1808 after Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807. The Squadron’s mission was to suppress the Atlantic Slave Trade by attacking slave ships off the coast of West Africa.

Letters of Marque were also issued to allow private security contractors, also known as ‘pirates’, to act on behalf of the British government under ‘false flags’ to attack Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arab, and American slave ships within the same mission scope. A particularly iconic practice was to approach a contact while flying the British red ensign, and then run it down the flagpole at the last minute and elevate the black Skull and Bones flag in its place before attacking the contact. Under the Skull and Bones, it was possible to exist in a parallel legal reality where you could do anything to anyone without a care in the world. This also happens to be the essence of what Ernst Junger would later refer to as the ‘dual state’.

The programme was later expanded by the 1840s to encompass North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Ocean, as Pax Britannica began to become entrenched across the major sea-lanes into the western hemisphere.

Notice how none of that involved inviting every single African into Britain. On the contrary, by taking the fight to the slave traders – both legally and extra-legally – it enabled the British to accomplish:

• a great work of humanitarianism,
• the pursuit of various geostrategic and geoeconomic objectives against Britain’s rivals,
• disincentivising the activities of the slave traders, and
• the ability to simply hijack virtually any ship and steal it, with popular support.

As Cecil John Rhodes once said, “Pure philanthropy is very well in its way, but philanthropy plus five percent is a good deal better.”

And really, it is, isn’t it?

Anyone who doubts can simply contrast the premiership of Theresa May against the premiership of Angela Merkel. Which is faring better? Exactly. I rest my case.

Related Articles:

• Dear monotheists: We will attack your semitic god. By what method? By all methods.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 10 September 2015.


• The Satanic Alliance: You really are ‘either with us or against us’.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 04 December 2015.


• Herding people into the institutions of the enemy is always a bad idea.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 10 March 2016.

Viewing the source behind the web archive from 2014 reveals something amazing.

This article is Part 1 of an ongoing series about the TRS scandal.
See also: Part 2.

Order of Battle

As you all are aware, Mike Enoch, now revealed to be actually Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich, is the founder of the website The Right Stuff, which opened in 2012 and hosts the popular and dubiously overwrought podcasts Fash the Nation and The Daily Shoah.

The Right Stuff has spent the entirety of the past four years serving up piping-hot reactionary narratives all of which just so happen to serve the geostrategic agenda of the architects of Russian foreign policy by carrying out Active Measures, American domestic honeypot agenda of the FBI, and the Israeli security agenda.

But if anyone had pointed that out before today, such a person would have been called ‘paranoid’ and even ‘insane’. After today however, such a person would simply be called ‘well informed’.

Note: The name ‘Pejnovic’ has a diaspora in 20 countries worldwide and has its highest concentration in Zagreb, Gospic and Klenovac, Croatia. It is found in small numbers in Peru, in the United States, and in the Russian Federation. ‘Peinovich’ is a Russian-Jewish variant that found its way into the diaspora of the United States and in Argentina.

The whole saga leading up to the revelation of Enoch’s real identity, started after Red Ice Radio hosted a show on 26 December 2016 in which Reactionary Jew was invited on as a guest and Lana Lokteff asked the audience to give them feedback on whether right-wing Jews have a place in the supposedly ethno-nationalist political scene that has recently been emerging in the west.

This question was of course met with outrage from various quarters as would be expected. But what was truly interesting was that many of the users and even some global moderators at The Right Stuff began to respond to that provocative question in the affirmative. That was met with deep suspicion by everyone, because it is suspicious.

The controversy and trolling then moved to 4chan /pol/, which is basically the wild west. People from The Right Stuff orchestrated a two week long posting and sliding campaign in which non-stop wall-to-wall pro-Israel propaganda posts and threads were created by them. 4chan /pol/ moderators then began banning all of the TRS people who were doing that, and the details of the bans were then taken back to the TRS forums and presented there.

This is just an example of some of the things that the TRS people were putting up:

TRS then proceeded to deny everything. They claimed that other groups were impersonating them. Some claimed that Hillary Clinton’s CTR was conducting pseudo-operations against them. Some claimed that EU Stratcom was targeting them. Some claimed that British intelligence was targeting them. Some claimed that ‘SJWs’ and Chicago Antifa were trolling them. They claimed that somehow Stormfront was trying to make them look bad. The claims were feverish and frenetic, bold and brash, and all diversionary nonsense.

Somewhere along the way, the TRS people decided that since they were trapped in that situation, the ultimate distraction would be to initiate a miniature Cyberwar against 8chan for no apparent reason. TRS decided to attempt a DDoS against 8chan. It failed. At this point, 8chan /baphomet/ became interested in the feud and many of its denizens informed TRS that they must stop their behaviour immediately, and that they must also apologise for the DDoS attacks and that they must apologise for making the pro-Israel posts, on air, or it would be war.

TRS basically then told 8chan /baphomet/ to “bring it on”.

8chan is however, an anonymous message board that sits on the edge of the Darknet. So they brought it, but no one really will ever know who ‘they’ are. TRS found itself being DDoS’d and this forced them to take shelter under Cloudflare. While the TRS staff were attending to that, they also found themselves being doxxed and the process was being crowdsourced on 8chan /baphomet/.

TRS then tried to go back to 4chan /pol/ and play the two sites against each other by claiming that 8chan /baphomet/ were actually the Antifa. Of course, TRS had just previously bombastically accused 4chan /pol/ of being the Hillary campaign on one hand and of being western intelligence on the other, so no one at 4chan was really in the mood for yet another round of that nonsense again. Furthermore, TRS had misunderstood the nature of anonymous message boards, supposing that there was a real dividing line between the ‘communities’ at 8chan and at 4chan. There is no such dividing line in actuality, because no one is seriously loyal to an anonymous message board. It’s just a vehicle through which various actors can drape themselves in a cloak of trendy anonymity. There is no ‘community’.

The Right Stuff subsequently found itself being Blown The Fuck Out by all of its adversaries, and all of their adversaries were able to maintain anonymity during the process.

Isn’t that marvellous?

Outcomes

It turns out that Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich is a Javascript Developer and a Public Relations Professional who has worked as a Front End Developer at BurrellesLuce, Time Inc, and Vook. He’s from New York. Vook was later rebranded as Pronoun, and is now a subsidiary of Holtzbrink Publishing Group.

Oh, and Peinovich is a Russian Jew married to a Jewish woman named Ames Friedman.

In 2010 he ran an Anarcho-capitalist blog called ‘Emptiness’, at which his wife made several comments with her real name.

In the same year, Peinovich also wrote an article for the Mises Institute.

On 03 July 2015, Peinovich appeared on Red Ice Radio, and actually mentioned that article which he had written for the Mises Institute, when he was explaining to them that he ‘used to be a libertarian’. He cryptically commented after the 13 minutes 25 seconds timestamp, “if you find it, ask if it’s me, and if you get it right, maybe I’ll tell you.”

At this point I don’t think anyone will need to be making any guesses about that anymore. On top of that, Peinovich earlier admitted to everything on the TRS forums before basically transforming himself into the ‘shut it down’ meme and shutting everything down:

There is no more speculation, there is only fact. Mike ‘Enoch’ Peinovich in fact admitted to what he has done.

Datamining concerns

Assuming that the entire TRS entity either originated as or became a full spectrum Information Operation, it means that all the usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, access logs, security questions, and password hashes that were submitted by people who—against all good advice—chose to actually register on the ridiculous TRS forum have a not-insignificant probability of falling into the hands of any number of adversaries who Peinovich may have allegiance to. FBI? Mossad? Who even knows at this point?

Does anyone really think this story is over? For some people, the problems may only just have begun.

Questions Remain

The remaining question would be, who knew about Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich’s Jewish identity before it was exposed today, when did they know, and if anyone did know, why wasn’t it exposed via normal channels much earlier?

A lot of people were in a position to have noticed the fact that Peinovich was in fact a Russian Jew orchestrating a massive disinformation campaign against everyone, one which may have influenced the outcome of the American election and created significant disruption in other English-speaking countries.

This is a partial list of the people who have directly interacted with Peinovich in some way over the past few years, and who one would think ordinarily should have detected that something was very wrong:

• Richard Spencer
• Greg Johnson
• Kevin MacDonald
• Colin Liddell
• Jared Taylor
• Andrew Anglin
• Lana Lokteff
• Henrik Palmgren
• David Duke
• Colin ‘Millenial Woes’ Robertson
• Kyle Bristow
• James Edwards
• John Friend
• Sam Dickson
• Jack Donovan
• William Regnery
• Andrew ‘Weev’ Auernheimer

It’s truly astounding that supposedly none of those people noticed anything, despite them having either worked with him and having been in interviews with him, or them having called in to TRS during its radio shows. At one point, Peinovich was even brought into a live podcast during the NPI 2015 conference.

Of particular significance is Peinovich’s relationship to Kyle Bristow. Bristow is the Executive Director of Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, Inc., an Alt-Right organisation that advocates on behalf of Alt-Right figures and coordinates legal services for them. Peinovich joined its board of directors on 11 December 2016, joining five lawyers, and law student, and a journalist who were already on the board of directors there. I presume they too might like everyone to believe that they didn’t notice anything?

Another one of key significance is Peinovich’s connection to Andrew ‘Weev’ Auerenheimer. Weev is the person who basically did a significant amount of work on the TRS website in order to ‘secure’ it. At some point between 2014 and 2017, the Paypal donations on that site were deactivated and only the Bitcoin donations remained. If Weev was the one who implemented that change, did he not notice the email address linked to their Paypal account was a glaring giveaway about who Mike Enoch really is? But if he did notice the disturbing truth, why did he not alert anyone? Many people could speculate.

Here are some examples of obvious clues that they could have picked up on:

Just as large swathes of the American population were getting ready to give up on the system as it presently exists and to instead settle into total cynicism, along came the Trumpists and outlets like The Right Stuff, who managed to revitalise and rescue the ridiculous system yet again!

And also there was this extra incident here:

Fucking incredible. All of the anti-semitic rhetoric that was going on there basically was a cover for the fact that a whole Jewish operation was being conducted right under the noses of the supposedly ‘red pilled’ and ‘savvy’ generation of new American right-wing activists.

Over the coming days and weeks, I’m sure that all kinds of explanations will be forthcoming from all of those people. The question that needs to be asked over and over again, is this: Who knew about Peinovich’s Jewish identity before today, and if any of them did know, when precisely did they know, and why did they not reveal it as soon as they became aware of it?

READ MORE...

Victorian houses have something about them which speaks the home-iest of houses.

It was only upon gathering an entry for what is becoming a Majorityrights tradition at this time of year - “I Believe in Father Christmas” - that I learned belatedly of Greg Lake’s passing. A handsome English lad, he also displayed his people’s incisive thought - penetrating nefarious Jewish influence masquerading as innocence; and doing so at a time, 1975, when there was no popular tide to raise this political boat to defiantly sail despite inevitably incurring the stigma of “anti-Semitism;” with the danger attendant to that and of flying in the face of popular support from millennia of European consensus, sheepish acquiescence; the only support would have been what he could have plumbed from the truer depths of his native culture and intelligence.

BBC, 8 Dec 2016: Greg Lake, who fronted both King Crimson and Emerson, Lake and Palmer, has died aged 69.

He died on December 7th after “a long and stubborn battle with cancer”, said his manager.

The news comes nine months after Lake’s band-mate Keith Emerson died.

Keith Emerson, Greg Lake & Carl Palmer

One of the founding fathers of progressive rock, the British musician (Lake) is known for songs including In the Court of the Crimson King and his solo hit I Believe in Father Christmas.

Lyrics: I Believe in Father Christmas.

They said there’ll be snow at Christmas
They said there’ll be peace on Earth
But instead it just kept on raining
A veil of tears for the Virgin birth
I remember one Christmas morning
A winters light and a distant choir
And the peal of a bell and that Christmas Tree smell
And their eyes full of tinsel and fire

They sold me a dream of Christmas
They sold me a Silent Night
And they told me a fairy story
‘Till I believed in the Israelite
And I believed in Father Christmas
And I looked TO the sky with excited eyes
‘Till I woke with a yawn in the first light of dawn
And I saw him and through his disguise

I wish you a hopeful Christmas
I wish you a brave New Year
All anguish pain and sadness
Leave your heart and let your road be clear
They said there’ll be snow at Christmas
They said there’ll be peace on Earth
Hallelujah Noel be it Heaven or Hell
The Christmas we get we deserve.

Written by: Greg Lake, Peter John Sinfield, Serge Prokofieff

READ MORE...