Majorityrights Central > Category: Liberalism

Where you lost the right to discriminate in private business as well.

Women Without Class

Originally Published November 26, 2011 at VoR; republished here for the sake of editorial correction and update - By Daniel Sienkiewicz

It was the ultimate YKW perversion of terms — civil rights, freedom and discrimination — culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Even a cursory glance over its statutes reveals obsolescence, disingenuousness and evil.

It takes no more than a glance at its statutes. One goes into an American institution and sees a placard looming overhead declaring “discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin…” to be illegal. Suddenly seeing discrimination rendered pejorative, illegal even, one experiences a vague feeling of dread.

You sense immediately that you are being told not to have so much as eyeballs by way of discriminatory capacity. You are to be utterly defenseless against biological antagonists, to have no present recourse against the destruction of that which is most important.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

I) Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. II) Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private.” III) Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. IV) Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act. V) Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act. VI) Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding. VII) Prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.

In detail this Act is more Byzantine than that, and the ramifications of these prohibitions of discrimination are horrendous.

Even freedom of association, as it does not account for full processual development of those within the class, would not be sufficiently deep by itself, were it allowed. But while that objectivist, rational blindness leveraged by the technology of “civil rights” was bad enough, YKW interests perverted its meaning to violate even freedom of association by means of the Civil Rights Act.

Alabama Governor Wallace confronted by school desegregation in the personification of D.A. Nicholas Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, working alongside a Kennedy clan willing to sell out and open its country to catastrophic integration in order to gain power, along with a similarly disposed Lyndon Johnson, making a good bid for worst president ever, sundry other YKW and objectivist Whites, oversaw departmental operations (implementing the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision) in desegregating the University of Mississippi in September 1962 and the University of Alabama in June 1963 – where he personally moved Governor Wallace aside to open the door for Blacks; also worked with Congress to ensure the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and had significant help from Javitz and Celler (of 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act infamy), to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

These initiatives also established precedent for California’s Rumford Fair Housing Act of ‘63 which prohibited discrimination regarding whom one rents or sells property; and the ‘68 Fair Housing Act which extended that ruling to a national basis.

Waiting at Woolworth’s

We have here in culmination the ultimate in doublespeak terms: “civil rights” equals being told whose babies we must pay for, with whom we must study, whose children we must educate (with precious knowledge tortuously acquired), to whom we must rent, to whom we must sell, whom we must hire, whom we must serve even in private businesses – and this is called “freedom.”

Waiting at Woolworth’s

The related decision regarding the Woolworth’s Lunch Counter, telling a private business whom they must serve, was always one that caused my mind to glitch, even at a rather young age. M.L. King, with help from YKW overlords organized Blacks and others, including a few no-class White women - such as Joan Trumpauer Mulholland - to “sit-in” at Woolworth’s and force a legal decision regarding desegregation of its lunch counters. The decision never made sense to me from the moment I heard about it – not in terms of anything that you can call freedom, anyway. Telling a private business whom they must serve, how, and whom they must hire – that is called “freedom”? It must be a YKW definition. “Freedom marches, freedom riders, civil rights” – right? Wrong. Rather quite civil wrongs.

Mulholland and Dr. King

Mulholland participating in the “sit-in” at Woolworth’s

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 went further by banning racial segregation “by businesses offering food, lodging, gasoline, or entertainment to the public.”

Original Woolworth’s sit-in counter enshrined at The Smithsonian Institute

This would seem to be a clear violation of civic freedom, but YKW are skilled at promoting the self-destruction of Whites, who have been high on objectivism, while Blacks are hyper-assertive.

It is a civil right and its opposite is called illegal discrimination punishable by law. Do not discriminate; do not see the terror that you are confronted with; do not see that you are in something like a monkey cage, a planet of the apes (I can tell whether one has or has not been around many, depending upon an indignant response to that analogy or not).

M.L. King Jr. and Malcolm X

In the article on Kant’s moral system, I mentioned a kind of anguish bordering on torture that I experienced when I was groping after a moral order: That anguish stemmed from having inherited an obsequious Christian rule structure - the golden rule - by which I was to somehow go up against America’s rule structure, lording as it did competition as noble for all and yet presenting me with still another obsequious and imperative rule in the form of the 64 Civil Rights Act; in confrontation with antagonistic demographics. Having experienced more than enough of them through forced busing to go to school with them, their riots of 1967 and 68 in the town of my birth, I was largely convinced that I did not want anything to do with Blacks. I assumed in my young age that it would be my prerogative one day, and that sane people would make the same choice. How could I believe that others, women even, could do other than legitimate separatism after seeing such things?

M.L. King Jr. and Malcolm X were at the U.S. Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill. This was the only time the two men ever met.

With Blacks rioting in Newark in the summer of 1967, my father’s generation repeating the “greatest generation” mantra that ‘you can’t fight City Hall’, the Vietnam War escalating unintelligibly so that no young person with a penis was immune from the draft, yes, I did have a certain yearning for the San Francisco version of that same summer of ‘67.

Beatle’s guitarist George Harrison did go there - to the Summer of Love Be-In festival in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park - but came away with a bad impression having dropped a bad batch of L.S.D. He saw these kids around him hideously spotted and vacuum-cleaner faced. From our perspective now, naturally it does not seem like such a bad scene, certainly the better option in the tale of two cities, Newark and San Francisco 1967. No wonder I was a bit reluctant to let that go, particularly enchanting it was to me as a child. I was a little disappointed when traditional women and men would say that was “all nonsense” or “the source of our problems”; and I was disconcerted to experience similar antagonism from feminists, particularly when the war had ended.

July 1967 Newark riots, left and center images.

Right, “The Summer of Love” follows the “Be-in” in San Francisco, 1967; George Harrison, Pattie (& the vacuum cleaner faces lol).

Before the late 80s interracial couples were rare.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 goes further to say that, “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Just Great (for non native English speakers, note the sarcasm please): You cannot discriminate against people that you do not like, whom you find immoral and dangerous.

While the dam had not burst through the 60s, 70s, or even into the early 80s, it was a period of ominous buildup, the implications of the rule structure and demographic make-up were pervasive and auguring catastrophe…

Once the Vietnam War had ended, traditional women were rearing their ugly head and feminism went into high gear, steam-rolling any agenda for White male needs, though many boys still had need for being, communal being (midtdasein). I had just assumed that everyone would naturally reject forced integration and charges of “racism” but young women did not seem quite as inclined. Why?

Let’s qualify all statements made about young women below to mean, at their worst/most opportune, given defective social structure and pandering. It would be clearly wrong to say that there are not plenty of cool White women. (1)

Thesis: Within the disorder resulting from civil rights (a feature of Enlightenment/Modernity) rupturing of classificatory (racial) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (“you’re so wonderful, may I have a date?”; i.e., an expression of sperm being cheap, ovaries precious) emerges with increased significance as they are less accountable to their inheritance and more competed for, pandered-to even, from males of other groups.

READ MORE...

Before you complain

An American once said to me that whenever they see me post an article about the United States now, they just have to brace for a total assault on their morale, and that “it is almost like seeing something like Tokyo Rose’s work in written form.”

I don’t know whether to take that as a compliment or not, since despite her best propaganda efforts, Iva Toguri D’Aquino was ultimately not able to convince the Americans to stop supporting the United States. Perhaps some of the Americans did have pause though, perhaps they did think occasionally, “You know, those things that Tokyo Rose is saying on the radio, could there be something to all that?”

But really, it’s not like I have to go out of my way to come up with these socio-economic angles against the ‘Make America Great Again’ concept. They present themselves to the world daily in such a high volume that it’s almost like trying to catch a cup of water from a firehose of negative developments. One has to be very selective about which part of the non-stop blast of negative news one is going to select, interpret, and develop a piece on, on any given day.

Today’s selection is going to really induce a feeling like when you’re sparring with someone and they forget to hold back, and next thing you know their foot is trying to tickle your kidneys or something, and it’s just like, “Oh wow, this pain is real.” It’s pretty bad. I apologise for the pain that you’re going to feel in advance.

True to the tradition I’ll get things started by putting the music on.

How things reached this stage

When Donald Trump was inaugurated on an overcast day about two months ago, he stood in front of the lectern and in a stern voice spoke the words that initiated a miserable new trade war:

TIME, ‘Trump Inauguration: Transcript of Donald Trump Speech’, 20 Jan 2017 (emphasis added):

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs.

Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body and I will never ever let you down.

America will start winning again, winning like never before.

We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

It may seem on the face of it that Donald Trump was saying that all the decisions he would make would be based on whether they will benefit American workers and American families. His mouth said that somewhere in there, but is that what protectionism actually does in the longrun?

We know that it does not benefit ‘workers and families’ in the longrun. 

There is widely understood empirical evidence which shows that in the present era, free trade is what benefits the broad mass of the people, not protectionism. Free trade is what enables wider access to products at a cheaper price. Free trade enables this indirectly by facilitating regional division and specialisation of production to enhance productivity on a planetary basis. 

Broadly speaking, tariff and non-barrier barriers are mostly retrogressive, as it is low income consumers who spend a greater percentage of their income on food, clothing, consumer electronics and vehicles, which tend to be most highly protected under the kind of tariff regime proposed by Donald Trump’s White House and supported by his Alt-Lite and Alt-Right supporters.

So if American ‘workers and families’ do not really stand to benefit, does this mean that I am saying that Donald Trump is not putting America ‘first’? By no means. The misunderstanding that many have is that they conflate rhetoric about a country’s interest with the interest of the broad mass of the people. Trump essentially tailored his speech to exploit that misunderstanding.

In fact, America is indeed being ‘put first’ by Trump, but that is not a positive thing. The policies which he is advocating ensure that those who really stand to benefit are primarily the American financiers and the upper-bourgeoisie stratum of big and middle-sized manufacturers, who feel themselves to be under stiff competition from their counterparts in Europe and Asia. This scenario comes at the end of a long cycle of a widening pattern of global investment during and after the Cold War environment, which had led to the repair and economic rehabilitation of that section of the world that America had razed to the ground in the process of destroying Axis. 

The repair and rehabilitation was possible because the leaders of various European and Asian economies opted to play the longest of long games, accommodating the liberal global order that the American victors had maintained for their own diplomatic and geostrategic benefit (to economically contain their next opponent, the Soviet Union), but which were used by the former Axis countries and other Third World countries to build something again from the ashes of the Second World War and to take advantage of the mutual benefits that came from having the economic vitality and thus the military wherewithall to deter the Soviet Union. 

A hegemon’s dilemma

The flourishing of any world order in which a hegemon has to allow power to devolve into the hands of outsiders, is a world order which will eventually unravel itself as the hegemon will come to fear its own deputies. Much as the Greek Empire unravelled itself when each of the governors, tribes, and exarchates which had been permitted to accrue power so as to encircle common enemies, suddenly realised that they had reached a stage where they could bid for global power in their own right, so too the American liberal world order is coming to a close as this cycle of capital accumulation draws to a close.

The productive capacity which had been offshored from the United States and implanted into the European and Asian periphery so as to reinforce economic containment and encirclement against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, now becomes in 2017 the potential weapon which the American high-bourgeoisie fears will be turned against it in a multipolar world, the first chapter of which is now opening. America’s old Cold War gendarmes of capital, are now gendarmes that are increasingly operating autonomously, and the United States is struggling to chart a course to address that new reality.

The American high-bourgeoisie wants what it views as ‘its wealth’ back. But they are not the actual owners of it. The wealth, limited though it is, and not without imperfection in its distribution, which is presently enjoyed by the peoples of Europe and Asia was re-built through hard years of work by the generation of people who survived the Second World War, and who, seeing their ideals crushed by the Americans, resolved to build their countries again during the Cold War.

The American high-bourgeoisie knows that it cannot fight the world alone, since it is only a small class of people, and therefore it must assert leadership and bind the other American classes to itself. They do this by appealing to a form of populism, where people like Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, knowing that they cannot appeal to a class consciousness, instead appeal to a civic nationalist mantra: “Make America Great Again.”

What is America that anyone should want to make it ‘great’ again? That is the most astounding development in this whole sequence, particularly in the context of the Alt-Right and other nationalist opinion-formers such as David Duke, who largely made themselves responsible for having enabled all of this. For example, Hunter Wallace at Altright.com said late last month: 

Hunter Wallace / Altright.com, ‘We Are The Vanguard’, 24 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

[...]

The primary reason the media is so interested in us is because it is our ideas that have entered the political mainstream. For years now, we have been the ones calling for an America First trade policy, an America First foreign policy, an American First immigration policy, rapprochement with Russia, scrapping the refugee resettlement program, stressing our interests as opposed to liberal ideology, strong borders and a crackdown on immigration, assaulting political correctness, making peace with the labor movement, etc., etc. [...] Now, we are living in the digital world of social media and young people are watching us on YouTube and Periscope. They are interacting with us on Twitter. We don’t need the “mainstream” to network or spread our ideas.

[...]

We are the vanguard now. The world has changed, the “mainstream” is dead and the media is trying to catch up with the times. Rich Lowry’s National Review and Bill Kristol’s The Weekly Standard are at the nadir of their influence over the Right. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if flyover country conservatives are familiar with Richard Spencer and the Alt-Right. If our ideas are triumphing over David Frum’s ideas and Bill Kristol’s ideas, it doesn’t matter. If our discourse triumphs over and displaces “mainstream” discourse, then we are having a massive impact whether the “mainstream” cartel acknowledges it or not.

The same kind of people who for years had operated under the suspicion that the United States was possibly falling under a ‘Zionist Occupation Government’, are now the very same kind of people who are actually trying in these days and hours to fight as hard as they can to attempt to defend and perpetuate the global reach of the United States government and its centrality as a manufacturing centre now that it is  transparently going into openly-verifiable overdrive in that regard. Now that the ‘occupation’ is openly parading itself in their faces from the White House in verifiable statements that have been reproduced in mainstream media outlets, they suddenly and magically cannot seem to see it.

Perhaps it may be that it is difficult to understand why that contradiction exists until you look at the socio-economic class dimension. Perhaps they choose not to notice the Zionism issue now, because it’s the case that it is inconvenient for them financially, given that most Trump voters are middle class and may believe that they stand to gain from the Trump administration’s budgetary, financial and economic policy direction. Or perhaps it is the case that they are just really bad at politics and aren’t paying attention to what is happening, and are more interested in identitarian form and signalling, than in actual policy. Or maybe it is the case that there is a kind of ongoing entryism which is usually not visible to the public but which only is revealed in short glimpses, such as, for example, when it emerged that Heritage Foundation analyst Jason Richwine had actually been writing for the old AlternativeRight.com website in 2010. Or it could be some combination of all of these things.

Whatever the case happens to be, for all those who ever believed in anything that those people previously said, these present developments can only be seen as a betrayal. If they are ‘the vanguard’ and this is what they have produced, then they have a considerable amount of explaining to do.

Unfortunately with the situation as it is, I am not expecting that an explanation will be coming from them, but I am expecting that the Alt-Right and Alt-Lite opinion-formers will continue to act as a kind of grassroots support for the Trump administration, one which will have a high resilience and effectiveness because it couples a tacit support with a consistent pseudo-denial of actually being on the same side as the administration. We hear on the one hand the Alt-Right continually saying that they are ‘not Trump’, but then on the other hand they like the specific actions the administration is doing and its overall direction which they see as a ‘stepping stone’ (to where?), they just wish that that those actions would be done with more intensity.

The effective function of the Alt-Right internet presence is basically that they remain engaged on social media as a ‘grassroots’ presence which continually presents narratives and arguments that serve to socially legitimate Trump administration spokespersons, supporters and key cabinet figures and their policy preferences in a way that is completely independent of the state, as it is done at arms length, behind a veil of denial and disavowal by the White House itself. The bonus that the White House receives in all of this is that there is no-one who has to be paid or instructed to do this for them. The Alt-Right doesn’t need to be paid, they do it for free.

Introduction

Getting started: This article is about one facet in the process of the Trump administration making its programme operational. The first operational step that the American high-bourgeoisie are taking is that they are seeking to enhance their structural power, or to turn a phrase, they are seeking to make themselves great again, by weakening the efficacy of checks or dissents against their power domestically. This would place them in the best command position imaginable, which would allow them the ability to then turn their focus to foreign policy and trade policy as their second step, with minimal interference at home. That second step is outside the scope of this article and will be covered at a later date. The first step is what will now be described here today.

Enhanced dictatorship of the high-bourgeoisie

There are four major actions that the Trump administration is carrying out right now which would allow the American high-bourgeoisie to enhance their structural power domestically. These actions are as follows:

1. H.R.985 - Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017.
2. H.R.720 - Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.
3. The appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States.
4. The elimination of all federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation.

Let’s go through them in the order I’ve listed them. And in case you are trying to guess what the four items have in common, yes, what all of these things have in common is that they pertain to the ability to form a class so as to bring a class action lawsuit against companies or government agencies, and to raise funds to carry out that endeavour.

H.R.985

When people are facing systemic abuse from companies or from government agencies, class action lawsuits are a vital tool that is used to bring a halt to their behaviour. By bringing about a class action lawsuit, a few people can stand in for a larger number of people in a lawsuit against a perpetrator and seek either injunctive relief (where the perpetrator must cease a bad practice) or compensation (monetary damages).

The bill, H.R.985 which passed in the US House of Representatives by recorded vote 220 - 201 on Thursday 09 March 2017, and will next be placed before the US Senate, is a bill that makes it more difficult for people to bring class action lawsuits.

Bill H.R.985 makes it harder for people to form a ‘class’ by further restricting and constraining the criteria under which people may come together to bring a case, and placing various hurdles in the way of the collection of lawyers’ fees, thus decreasing the incentive for lawyers to take on class action lawsuits.

The net effect of this is that it will sharply reduce the ability of people to seek injunctive relief or compensation in any scenario where they are being harmed by a company or a government agency.

The architects of the bill and its proponents, such as Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), have tried to mask their intentions by presenting it to the media as a bill that is designed to prevent supposedly-existent ‘lawyer-driven litigation’, by which they mean a kind of ‘trolling’ litigation which is designed to enrich lawyers rather than address any actual grievance of the plaintiffs. By masking their intentions with such a cover story, the lawmakers have sought to conceal the actual reality of the attack which they themselves are conducting against working people and families.

The factor which exposes their cover story as a lie, is the simple fact that if they really thought that they needed to write a bill to prevent ‘lawyer-driven litigation’, then they wouldn’t have written a bill that attacks people’s ability to seek injunctive relief, in which money is not awarded but practices are changed, as well as compensation. However, that is precisely what they have done, and in doing so, their motive was revealed along with the effect.

On the issue of the hurdles placed in the way of the collection of lawyers’ fees, the bill deliberately limits lawyers’ fees in injunctive relief cases to “a reasonable percentage of the value” of the relief. This of course makes no sense, by design, because it is quite impossible for a court to determine what the monetary worth of a non-monetary action is, so as to calculate such a percentage. The effect is that lawyers would be disincentivised from taking the risk of bringing an injunctive class action case.

Furthermore, the bill also places a condition on the timing of the payment of lawyers’ fees to the date of full monetary recovery. This could even sometimes deny lawyers the ability to be paid their fees altogether, since some cases have a term of settlement that is longer than the remaining lifespan of the lawyers who are working on the case. For example, in a case where full settlement is expected to take fifty years, it would mean that the lawyers would not be paid until the end of those fifty years. Even with that potentially disastrous scenario aside, with regards to the duration of the litigation itself, the condition incentivises defendants to drag out and prolong litigation.

The possibility of never receiving lawyers’ fees or having to wait years to receive them, will act as an enormous deterrent for any law firm that absolutely requires those fees to pay their staff and keep their business running.

H.R.720

H.R.720 the so-called ‘Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act’ is a cunningly named bill which will actually require all federal judges to penalise any lawyer who brings what they consider to be a ‘frivolous lawsuit’. Up until now, it has up to the judge’s discretion to decide whether to do this.

The interesting thing about this is that for a lawsuit to actually make it to the point where it has come before a jury, it means that a judge clearly already considers it to be a valid lawsuit. Legislation like H.R.720, simply incentivises the behaviour where a defendant can continually protest that everything that is happening is ‘frivolous’, and it disincentivises lawyers from trying to bring a lawsuit to find out how it will be regarded.

In practice, this means that the legislative and executive branches of US government are seeking to attack lawyers for trying to help people to seek relief or compensation through the court system. After all, a corporate defendant would likely start out from the stance that any lawsuit brought against their esteemed selves is definitely ‘frivolous’.

The appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS

An ‘originalist’ Judge Neil Gorsuch, having previously been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by George W. Bush on 08 August 2006, has been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States by President Donald J. Trump. A decent summary of his background has been written at FiveThirtyEight.

Beltway conservatives immediately feted him as having come out of the mold of another now late ‘originalist’ Judge Antonin Scalia, or at least something close to that. Evangelicals celebrated Gorsuch’s statements about his belief in the ‘pro-life’ stance, as that is a pet issue of maximal all-consuming importance to them. 

The Alt-Lite and Alt-Right’s reaction to the nomination was in a sense no more sophisticated or diligent than that of any of the other groups. Hunter Wallace published a very strange article at Alt-Right.com which referred to Gorsuch as a “real American”, as though this were a reason for why he wanted to see Gorsuch nominated in and of itself. Richard Spencer produced an article which had a similarly strange central thrust, referring to Gorsuch as “America’s wise, WASPy dad—an avatar of the ruling class of days gone by.” Spencer’s view was echoed by James Edwards on the Political Cesspool, which carried Spencer’s article verbatim. 

In my view none of this matters anyway, but while ‘Gorsuch’ may be an old Anglo-Saxon name, the man himself is ancestrally Irish. Additionally, Gorsuch was raised as a Catholic, and then he converted to Episcopalianism later, so he is not a ‘WASP’. He’s also not America’s ‘dad’, he’s a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, for goodness sake.

Unfortunately no real analysis of Gorsuch’s views on class action lawsuits has been done by anyone in the nationalist sphere. If anyone had chosen to do so, then some extremely meaningful patterns, all of which are negative, would have emerged into view immediately.

SCOTUSblog gives us an interesting look in with the summary containing this excerpt:

Amy Howe / SCOTUSblog, ‘A closer look at Judge Neil Gorsuch and class actions’, 08 Mar 2017 (emphasis added):

[...]

Covering the Wal-Mart decision for this blog, Lyle Denniston described Scalia as the court’s “most dedicated skeptic about the class-action approach to litigation.” Whether Gorsuch, if confirmed, would follow in Scalia’s footsteps remains to be seen. During his decade on the bench, Gorsuch has participated in relatively few class action cases. In the cases involving class action issues in which he has participated, he has generally, but not always, ruled for the defense. Notably, both in cases in which he has ruled for the defense and those in which he has ruled for the plaintiffs, Gorsuch has emphasized the need for courts to stay in their lane, so to speak – that is, not to exceed their authority, particularly when it comes to decisions that are in his view best left to Congress.

[...]

The Bazelon Center has a review which also contains some example of cases that were not class action lawsuits, but seem to give some idea of how Gorsuch interprets civil rights law in general:

Bazelon Center, ‘Review of Disability Cases Involving Judge Neil Gorsuch’, 17 Feb 2017:

In Hwang v. Kansas State University, 753 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2014), Judge Gorsuch wrote an opinion ruling against a longtime professor at a state university who had taken a six-month leave of absence to recover from her cancer treatment. At the end of that period, she requested a short period of additional leave at the advice of her doctor in order to avoid a severe flu outbreak on campus that could endanger her already compromised immune system. The university refused to grant additional leave. Judge Gorsuch began his analysis of Professor Hwang’s claim by asking: “Must an employer allow employees more than six months’ sick leave or face liability under the Rehabilitation Act? Unsurprisingly, the answer is almost always no.” Although the ADA and Rehabilitation Act say nothing about the length of leaves granted by employers and specifically require that that such accommodation requests be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, Judge Gorsuch held that a leave of absence as long as six months would “turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work.” He also described Professor Hwang as “a problem other forms of social security aim to address”—even though the professor was willing and able to resume her duties through online classes immediately, or through in-class teaching after the additional short leave. Judge Gorsuch also rejected her argument that the university’s inflexible six-month leave policy was discriminatory, instead reasoning that applying the same leave policies to all employees, without providing reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with a disability, would protect employees with disabilities from being “secretly singled out for discriminatory treatment.” Judge Gorsuch thus concluded that the six-month leave policy was “more than sufficient to comply” with the Rehabilitation Act. [...]

I’m sure everyone can guess where these examples are going. Here’s another:

Bazelon Center, ‘Review of Disability Cases Involving Judge Neil Gorsuch’, 17 Feb 2017:

In Wehrley v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 513 F. App’x 733 (10th Cir. 2013), a panel including Judge Gorsuch found that the plaintiff had not established that he had a disability that entitled him to the ADA’s protections. Wehrley, an insurance field claim adjuster, injured his knee and back in a workplace accident, and his employer fired him because of his inability to work on claims that involved going onto roofs. At trial, Wehrley introduced evidence of significant limitations in major life activities, including a medical report stating that he could not walk or stand for prolonged periods, that his pain disrupted his sleep, and that he had to change positions every 30 minutes while sitting. Judge Gorsuch and the panel concluded, however, that Wehrley had not shown that these impairments were substantial because the report did not say that he was unable to “walk or stand in the ordinary course of a day,” nor did it describe the extent or severity of the disruption to his sleep. Without sufficient evidence of a substantial impairment in a major life activity, the panel found that he did not meet the definition of a person with a disability.

And one more:

Bazelon Center, ‘Review of Disability Cases Involving Judge Neil Gorsuch’, 17 Feb 2017:

In Adair v. City of Muskogee, 823 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2016), Judge Gorsuch joined an opinion affirming summary judgment against the plaintiff after finding that he was unable to perform an essential function of his position. The plaintiff, a firefighter who held the position of HazMat Director, injured his back during a training exercise. The city required that he complete a functional-capacity evaluation, which showed that he had some restrictions on his lifting ability. He sued the city under the ADA for disability discrimination, alleging that he was constructively discharged when the city encouraged him to retire rather than be terminated because it regarded him as disabled. The plaintiff argued that he was capable of performing the essential functions of the HazMat Director position even with the lifting restrictions, testifying that he did not need to lift in his position and had never performed regular firefighter duties during his four years as HazMat Director. However, Judge Gorsuch and the panel discounted the plaintiff’s testimony and instead deferred to a state law listing the ability to lift up to 200 pounds as an essential function for all firefighters, regardless of specialized roles. Since the plaintiff suggested no potential accommodations other than being relieved of the lifting duty, the panel concluded that he was not a qualified individual under the ADA.

Being an ‘originalist’ and a ‘textualist’ seems to involve being deliberately absurd in ways that happen to be generally convenient for the defence. The addition of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States meshes with the thrust of the pieces of legislation, H.R.985 and H.R.720, which were described earlier and which are presently making their way though the US Congress, in a way that enhances their effect.

The addition of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court returns it to the balance that existed when Judge Antonin Scalia was still alive. It is not beyond possibility that sometime in the next four years another judge will be replaced, and at that point Donald Trump may even be able to appoint an additional ‘originalist’ and ‘textualist’ to the court, such as for example Judge William Pryor.

But it is sad that no one is paying any attention to these developments. Choices made during the Trump administration will shape the character of the American system for a generation or longer.

The elimination of all federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation

They suggested that it was going to happen, and now they are moving toward doing it. See here:

New York Times, ‘Popular Domestic Programs Face Ax Under First Trump Budget’, 17 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

WASHINGTON — The White House budget office has drafted a hit list of programs that President Trump could eliminate to trim domestic spending, including longstanding conservative targets like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, AmeriCorps and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.

Work on the first Trump administration budget has been delayed as the budget office awaited Senate confirmation of former Representative Mick Mulvaney, a spending hard-liner, as budget director. Now that he is in place, his office is ready to move ahead with a list of nine programs to eliminate, an opening salvo in the Trump administration’s effort to reorder the government and increase spending on defense and infrastructure.

[...]

Eliminating all funding for the Legal Services Corporation is the same thing as abolishing it. Some people may be wondering what it does, and such people would now be wondering about that at a time when it is too late to make a difference. Although the United States Constitution contains language that promises equality in the provision of justice, the language is operationally meaningless unless it can also be said that all people have the ability to access legal services and legal remedies.

Defendants in criminal cases are guaranteed the right to have a lawyer because of the outcome of the United States Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), but the same right to a lawyer does not actually exist for civil cases.

The beginning of the United States government’s effort to provide legal assistance Americans with low-income for civil cases, emerged during Lyndon B. Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty’, which gave rise to the creation of the Office of Economic Opportunity in 1964. In 1965, the office created the Legal Services Program, which provided assistance all over the United States.

However, the Legal Services Program was up for White House review in 1969, and the Office of Economic Opportunity itself was in existence because of the Economic Opportunity Act which was scheduled to expire in 1970.

President Richard M. Nixon, who took office in January 1969, asked the US Congress in February 1969 to extend appropriations for the Office of Economic Opportunity. The Ash Commission, headed by former United States Army Air Corps Captain Roy Ash, found “virtual unanimity that organizational improvement of the Executive Office of the President is needed.” Among the recommendations made on this issue, the Ash Commission advocated that Nixon ought to create an independent corporation which would receive funds from the US Congress to disburse to local legal aid organisations.

Nixon made the memo public in February 1971 and in May 1971 he sent a special message to the US Congress proposing the establishment of the Legal Services Corporation.

On 25 July 1974, Richard M. Nixon signed the Legal Services Corporation Act.

The Legal Services Corporation has not been without controversy during its existence, and several unsuccessful attempts to abolish it have been attempted over the years. The most recent unsuccessful attempt to abolish it was in 2005:

TexasLawyersHelp.org, ‘Eliminate LSC and Other Programs, Says Republican Study Committee in “Operation Offset” Budget Report’, 30 Sep 2005 (emphasis added):

A recent report issued by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of nearly 100 conservative House members, calls for the elimination of all federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation. U.S. Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN), RSC’s chairman, and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), RSC’s budget and spending task force chairman, issued the 23-page report on September 21, 2005. The report—called “Operation Offset: RSC Budget Options 2005”—urges Congress and the President to eliminate federal expenditures as far-ranging as Medicaid and Medicare, graduate school student loan subsidies, foreign aid, the National Endowment for the Arts, matching grants for presidential candidates, and LSC. [...]

Yes, that is the same Mike Pence who is presently the Vice-President of the United States. It’s interesting how that has happened to work out.

Another interesting fact is that the Heritage Foundation which submitted the list from which Donald Trump selected Judge Neil Gorsuch’s name to nominate him to the United States Supreme Court, is also visibly active in crafting and giving legitimation to the budget which will abolish the Legal Services Corporation:

New York Times, ‘Popular Domestic Programs Face Ax Under First Trump Budget’, 17 Feb 2017:

[...]

Stephen Moore, another Heritage Foundation economist who advised Mr. Trump during his campaign, acknowledged that powerful constituencies were behind many of the programs that are on the chopping block. But he said now that Republicans are finally in control of the government, they must make a valiant effort to fulfill the promises they have been making to voters for years.

“I think it’s an important endeavor to try to get rid of things that are unnecessary,” Mr. Moore said. “The American public has a lot of contempt for how government is run in Washington, in no small part because there is so much waste.”

If you know anyone who seriously believes that the Heritage Foundation along with all the other personalities I’ve mentioned here are just innocently trying to ‘get rid of things that are unnecessary’, send that person to me, because I have a bridge to sell them — and it’s on the moon.

Conclusion

Particular factions among the American ruling class are seeking to enhance their structural power, or to turn a phrase, they are seeking to make themselves great again, by weakening the efficacy of checks or dissents against their power domestically in an environment in which they have total power over all branches of the government and are receiving virtually no criticism from their own constituency on any economic issues. This would place them in the best command position imaginable, which would allow them the ability to then turn their focus to foreign policy and trade policy.

Everything that the American ruling class is doing to pacify and constrict the power of their own constituents at home, is a preparation and a prerequisite for them being able to efficiently conduct a trade war against European, Asian, and Latin American states.

Enacting a tariff regime as a necessary centre-piece of the trade war is an action which will raise the cost of inputs for all American manufacturers. One of the ways that they will offset that cost will be to enable American companies to act in cost-cutting ways that disregard the interests of American workers and families without having to worry about being subjected to lawsuits brought by those workers and families.

Passing H.R.985 and H.R.720, as well as appointing Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court and abolishing the Legal Services Corporation, are four key actions that are part of the process of them ‘moving the ball down the playing field’ in that regard.

Evidence has been presented here which illustrates that the entire edifice of ‘Make America Great Again’ is going to be constructed atop a foundation of socio-economic retrogression and misery.

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.

Whatcha doin’, Dahnald?

In my previous article I sarcastically included the following line:

Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights.com, ‘What you should be looking for in Donald Trump’s address to the US Congress.’, 28 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

[...] 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.

[...]

At the very beginning of the speech, Donald Trump chose to do exactly that. He did that when he said:

US President Donald J. Trump, ‘Speech to Joint Session of Congress’, 01 Mar 2017 (emphasis added):

And citizens of America, tonight, as we were — as we mark the celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains to be done.

Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.

That is a rather strange thing for him to say, given that at the time that he chose to say that, he would already have known about this investigation which was simultaneously taking place at the FBI:

Riverfront Times, ‘Juan Thompson, 31, Busted for JCC Bomb Threats; St. Louis Native Was Disgraced Journalist’, 03 Mar 2017 (emphasis added):

Disgraced former journalist Juan Thompson has been arrested on federal cyberstalking charges after the FBI traced multiple bomb threats against Jewish community centers and the Anti-Defamation League to the St. Louis native, authorities say.

Thompson, who was the subject of a Riverfront Times investigation last year, called in the threats as part of a bizarre scheme to frame an ex-girlfriend, according to the Justice Department.

“Today, we have charged Juan Thompson with allegedly stalking a former romantic interest by, among other things, making bomb threats in her name to Jewish Community Centers and to the Anti-Defamation League,” U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara said in a statement. “Threats of violence targeting people and places based on religion or race — whatever the motivation — are unacceptable, un-American, and criminal. We are committed to pursuing and prosecuting those who foment fear and hate through such criminal threats.”

Thompson, 31, was once a reporter for The Intercept, but he was fired after the New York City-based news site found he had been making up sources. Our investigation turned up even more journalistic problems dating back to his college days at Vassar in Poughkeepsie, New York.

Thompson later briefly surfaced at an online news site, but was fired after someone there learned of his background. He has blamed racism for his difficulties and self-published a piece on Medium blasting The Intercept and “the white liberal media.”

More recently, Thompson launched a GoFundMe campaign, claiming he was running for St. Louis mayor. (He never filed the necessary paperwork.)

“This election is all about people power,” he wrote. “Because only with your voices and your votes and your power can we fight back against Trumpian fascism and socio-economic terrorism.” He raised just $25 of his $5,000 goal.

See our latest update: Before Bomb Threats, Juan Thompson Unraveled — and Terrorized an RFT Reporter

Also, check out the federal complaint.

Juan Thompson Complaint on Scribd

The Conclusion

So it was basically an African-American man who was perpetrating an elaborate hoax so as to frame his White liberal ex-girlfriend as an anti-Semite.

You couldn’t make it up.

But think about this. If the federal complaint was formally raised the morning after Donald Trump gave his speech to the joint session of congress, is it beyond possibility that Trump in fact knew exactly what was going on before he gave the speech?

He is the President of the United States. This is not campaign mode anymore. The FBI would have made him aware of the fact that these bomb-threats were likely to be coming from Juan Thompson and that the motive was not political.

Why did Trump not just say with certainty that he knew that the bomb threats against Jewish community centres had in fact been a hoax all along?

I think everyone knows the answer to that question, right?

Black Coffee and Humble Pie - Eat It: British musicians quest for authentic organicism in their rock n’ roll took a turn to estrangement from Whiteness.

To the British hippie looking to pursue his dream of rock stardom unfettered by the inorganicism of letters and to facilitate his effort to outflank musical competitors by dint of his capacity to assimilate black organicism - black soul - his motives might have appeared one and the same as self actualization in the hippie agenda - appearing as universal expression, absent as it were authentication through confrontation of his own mortality, in the draft and the stark contrast with the reality of MLK’s “dream”, let alone Malcolm X’s.

There was a significant difference in motivation between British and American hippies in that the British context lacked the personal being toward death that confronted American hippies through the Vietnam draft; and the collective being toward death confronting them directly in day to day life with blacks in numbers; especially absent, as Americans were, the deep, historically confirmed social group of their (White) people and place, which British hippies took for granted.

Taking that for granted, the British hippies had a distorted view on blacks, largely seeing the pleasantly presented musical aspects of blacks, initially by ((Chess Records))); or representations in (((American and British media))) of blacks as “arbitrarily” oppressed. Without the lived experience of having to deal with blacks in numbers, on equal nationalist footing (actually not equal - blacks had an advantage in the sense that they were allowed to organize in their group interests, having had strident and powerful Jewish backing as such), but by contrast, given British hippies’ capacity to rely on the superior warrant of their White historical people and place, their native experience lacked the existential circumstances of crisis which made for the profound element of hippiedom - its quest for midtdasein - especially for the White male part.

It is not that I lack of sympathy for their mistake, since when I was yet to be confronted on the precarious recourse of civic nationalism by blacks in numbers - as I would be in a few years, with “school integration” - I myself looked upon American southerner’s “prejudice” against blacks as “abhorrent.” I didn’t know from experience, but rather from what (((TV))) had told me. In fact, I incredulously asked my cousins from Alabama “why southerners were prejudiced against blacks?”

But whereas I merely needed to be bused to the black side of town, as I would be in 1971, to learn my lesson and eat humble pie, it could take considerably more to disabuse a British musician of his dream of being a part of the British rock n’ roll invasion of America. He had brushed-up for months on his black licks while he spun Howlin’ Wolf and Muddy Waters records as an isolated variable in his house - safely ensconced in a White nation (while perhaps envious of American success and seeing his superior lack of prejudice as means to rise above the crude, nouveau riche Americans) - removed from the American black movement’s disconcerting contrast with the hippies’ weird, organic expressions of White male midtdasein. On the one hand, there was the contrast of the intimidating aggression of black power as compared to the hippie goal for peaceful communal being; and on the other hand there was the awkwardness of the weird and unkempt hippies by contrast to the studied dress and manner (horn-rimmed glasses, thin ties and uniform black suits) that the Marxist Highlander School of Tennessee taught black civil rights activists to carry themselves with - an air prim and proper, full of “integrity” and “dignity” was to be projected with black “civil rights activism.”

To the British hippie looking to pursue his dream of rock stardom unfettered by the inorganicism of letters and to facilitate his effort to outflank musical competitors by dint of his capacity to assimilate black organicism - black soul - his motives might have appeared one and the same as self actualization in the hippie agenda - appearing as universal expression, absent as it were authentication through confrontation of his own mortality, in the draft and the stark contrast with the reality of MLK’s “dream”, let alone Malcolm X’s.

                     
While sleeping with White whores, Marxist trained MLK projected innocence and promoted “a dream” to the naive and disingenuous, that black and White children could blend to no harm; black Muslim trained Malcolm X preached to the black power militancy of his own, proclaiming along with Elijah Muhammad that “the black man would rule.”

He was not quite getting that the emulation of black organic being lacked the requisite delimitation of White midtdasein, the authentic, organic expression of its peoplehood; at that time organic White male being sought crucial reprieve from the habit of war, alleviation from monocultural (nee universal) male rites of passage and the overcompensating traditional male role of tribal aggression as a result. Having his ancient national recourse to duck the repercussions and the direct experience of living with blacks pursuing their own power nationalism and civic motives made it harder to dismiss the Enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice and the Jewish hard-sell misrepresentation of prejudice against blacks was invalid. The British rock musician could more easily fancy his grand tour of The US market as a gospel barnstorm; imagine his band on an evangelical mission, to demonstrate non-prejudice and good will toward blacks et al; he could not fully appreciate that his vision was a controlled illusion of (((The Western Media and Powers That-Be, generally))) that might be woken up to reality if only cold water were thrown in his small face by tour’s end, when it was time to retreat home.

Still there was this great pitfall besides brackets for White males in their pursuit of authentic Being at this point. Their pursuit of midtdasein in correction of past over compensations that resulted of didactic incitement to arbitrary competition remained stigmatic against traditional gender roles -  midtdasein was not only going against the male role of aggressive competitor, but against his pursuit of sheer victory and achievement, going against the pinnacle of stand-out actualization above society, or rather atop, but still comfortably aligned, which was the linear traditional direction of male quest.

Moving beyond mere custom and habit of tradition, to reject this quest of pinnacle actualization as a priority nevertheless remained stigmatic from the newly hegemonic modernist standpoint also - its sanctioned pursuit of self actualization as a universal good and in a universal context, transcendent of group interests, was the offered reward for any man who’d compete for it and win it - but offering no sympathetic rest for midtdasein. No, the naively anti-social, a-historical, a-contextual pursuit of self actualization was not only the upshot of traditional objectivism itself, but exploited and exacerbated by Jewish tribal interests who maintained group organization for themselves while inciting profound group competition for others: pandering to female inclination to incite genetic competition in modernist feminism; and otherwise distorting beyond reason the modernist rule structure; saliently, by means of “civil individual rights” and the prohibition of group classification and discrimination by Whites as “racism”; i.e., aiding out-groups, and leaving midtdasein a highly unsympathetic quest by contrast. 

But another large pitfall of the hippie movement and why it did not succeed in becoming articulate in promulgating its organic motive of midtdasein, its profound importance, was that in an initial phase, at least, Being would move toward organic synthesis and against analysis - rebelling against the artificial divisions of analysis, whether the analysis facilitated by mere words or the more baroque analysis of academia and its traditions. Furthermore, males, especially in the disorder of modernity, tended not to be in the addressive position (how are you? can I have a date? Oh, I care about your feelings, why did he hurt you? etc.), a position that contributes to becoming articulate, a position that females occupy increasingly with the upshot of modernity, with the assumption that their intrinsic feelings and thoughts are worth consideration and worth more on the market - with incentive to maintain that increasingly competed for one up position through didactic incitement. Lacking that second person addressive position by contrast and incitement, males would tend to overcompensate, seeking stilted prosthesis in the detached third person position - e.g., a rock star to his audience.

This could result in a kind of estrangement, superficiality and naivete in the pursuit of authentic self actualization, particularly when pursued by alpha male musicians flouting education, “jive-talk” (as opposed to the basic talk), flouting the awkward sublimation, the nerdishness that is characteristic of a good part of authentic White male being. Again, this European soul, as it were, was distinct form the black power and civil rights movement which would view White organic variants as geeky White jive, lacking in the black man’s “sou- ee oo - ee ou—- ooouwel - oou - ouwhel” and “in-teg-ritae.”

Itchycoo Park: Over Bridges of Sighs.To rest my eyes in shades of green. Under Dreaming Spires. To Itchycoo Park, that’s where I’ve been. What did you do there? - I got high. What did you feel there? - Well I cried. But why the tears there? - I’ll tell you why - yyyyy. It’s all too beautiful, It’s all too beautiful. It’s all too beautiful, It’s all too beautiful. I feel inclined to blow my mind. Get hung up, feed the ducks with a bun. They all come out to groove about. Be nice and have fun. in the sun. I’ll tell you what I’ll do - What will you do? I’d like to go there now with you. You can miss out school. Won’t that be cool. Why go to learn the words of fools? What will we do there? We’ll get high. What will we touch there? We’ll touch the sky. But why..

Because authentic White male being will manifest the quirkiness of our optimal sublimation, the appreciation of which is a part of our K selection strategy, its authentic expression was revealed in initial spontaneous, organic expression - that is essential to why this celebration of the weird was a part of hippiedom as well. Blacks, and R selectors generally, are not circumspect enough in their concerns to be weird in the flighty way that Whites are - blacks are cool and overly comfortable, at home in the world, their patterns are too old, stable, masculine and no-nonsensical to be weird in the White way. If sufficiently understood, the appreciation of this optimal White male sublimation would serve to gauge authentic praxis, between the Cartesian extremes of empirical myopia and abstract universalism. This median male sublimation, as opposed to over-confidence, gives us sufficient empathy and pause to spawn intellectual creativity. But within the inciting context of modernity, the pursuit of midtdasein for White males, was but a flicker that was extinguished when it was no longer required consolation against the absurdity of the Vietnam war.

READ MORE...

       

German Council of Economic Experts: 5 “wise men” entrusted to render reports that Merkel and the German government can and have used to justify the mass introduction of aliens upon the European habitat, the ensuing replacement of the German, and finally the European genome.

Wikipedia, ‘German Council of Economic Experts’:

The Council has five members which are nominated by the federal government and appointed by the president of Germany.

In the media, the council is often referred to as the Five Sages of Economy (“Fünf Wirtschaftsweisen”), or the “wise men”:

• Christoph M. Schmidt (since March 2009, and since March 2013 chairman)
• Peter Bofinger (since March 2004)
• Lars Feld (since March 2011)
• Isabel Schnabel (since March 2014)
• Volker Wieland (since March 2013)

These five “wise men” have Angela Merkel’s ear and confidence - they’ve been appointed with her approval and their reports to her are being used to try to explain and justify the waves of migrants being imposed upon Germany and Europe -

Ibid:

Every year the Council prepares an annual report which is published before or by November 15.

German Council of Economic Experts, Annual Report 2016/17 -

INFLUX OF REFUGEES: INTEGRATION AS A KEY CHALLENGE:

Asylum-related immigration to Germany dominated the economic and socio-political debate from autumn 2015 to spring ‘16.

        Highlights in criticism of the analysis:

1. The council takes a comparative basis of what was required to integrate East German and Balkan “asylum seekers”—integration meaning that it took about 20 years for them to be generally gainfully employed—and attempts to project how long similar integration would take of the Middle Eastern and North African “asylum seekers”.

2. Taking in such factors as education and German language acquisition it concludes that by the year 2080 there would be no economic loss to the German social security system—there would be no economic gain either: the analysis fails to point out that the effort is pointless from an economic standpoint even IF there are no problems resulting from the introduction of vast numbers of non-European peoples into Germany other than the factors cited in the analysis—that is to say, they have not, for example, taken into account the cost of terrorism, terrorism prevention, strains on infrastructure and genetic reaction from German/European peoples. Even if there were no terrorist acts to come or to prepare for, even if there was not European racial backlash, at best, by 2080 the program would be an economic wash.

3. The variables that they take into account to factor as a difference from the task of integrating prior (European) “asylum” seekers as compared to the present mass of Middle Eastern “asylum” seekers are the capacity to learn German language - i.e., well enough to function in gainful employment, and the ability of the “asylum” seekers to support themselves financially. 91% of applicants since the migration crisis began have been given a temporary residence permit. To get a permanent residence permit after three years, an “asylum” seeker must demonstrate proficiency the German language (language level C1) and earn their living independently. A permanent residence permit after five years may be granted if a seeker can demonstrate at least level A2 knowledge of German and can at least partially earn their living. Once granted a residence permit a person also is a German citizen and as such has the right to go anywhere within the EU.

4. It is not only acknowledged that 70% of “asylum seekers” are male and under 30, it is strongly implied that this is a feature and not a problem, because they are more accustomed to work than females of their Islamic culture.

5. The capitalist motive for bringing in these “laborers” is bereft of intelligence, because they are intending to build an anachronistic industrial model—i.e., more unskilled labor and less development of robotics. Furthermore, again, as their presence is at best an economic wash with regards to social security by the year 2080—even IF they do turn out to be dutiful workers right along—the frequently-heard argument that they are necessary to fund pensioners is bereft.

And none of this takes into account the genetic destruction of Germans and the implication for the destruction the European genome as these “asylum seekers” would be “integrated” over the next 60 years.

See also: Already 40% of German residents under age five are of migrant background.

(((Frank Meyer, father of paleoconservatism))) and its (((opposition))) to (((neoconservatism)))

Both in terms of its meta-contextual frames and in terms of its content, this piece is meant to deepen Greg Johnson’s account of the Alternative Right history and trajectory.

Steve Bannon has brought into high relief the underpinnings of the Alternative Right and has crystallized the underlying agenda - implicit White nationalist support was to be used via The Alternative Right/Lite to win for the Republicans and then, as usual, implicit White nationalism was to be discarded, the primary difference this time being that it was not in favor of the bracketed refurbished version of conservatism, “neo-conservatism”, but rather in favor of a bracketed refurbishment of paleoconservatism - Alt Right/Alt Lite contra “The Left” - i.e., contra ethno-nationalism.

- It begins with the philosophy of (((Frank Meyer))):

Frank Meyer saw himself more sophisticated and opposed to the simplified hawkishness of (((Irving Kristol’s))) neo-cons - who advocated neo-liberal policies domestically while advocating wars for Israel abroad.

Meyer and his paleoconservatism are actually a more virulent expression of Jewishness. He wanted Americans to identify with, support and affix Abrahamic culture domestically (calling things like that “conservative”), while allowing for politics conducive to mediating neo-liberal interests through feudalistic compradors and Jewish interests abroad.

He would call his paleocon philosophy “fusionism”, that is, a fusion of Judeo-Christianity and the Enlightenment philosophy of America’s constitution - though these values were an awkward fit (having mainly Cartesianism in common), Americans were familiar with them as “conservative.” Ronald Reagan was sold on the idea, seeing Meyer as a mentor of sorts, and groomed to be President.

This is the school of thought from whence came (((Paul Gottfried))), Reagan “conservatism”, Pat Buchanan, and Sam Francis.

That (((paleoconservative))) school of thought, in opposition to the (((neocons)))), became foundational for The NPI of Sam Francis and William Regnery II.

Update March 2020:

In the original form of this article, I make Gottfried seem more deliberately Pro Israel than he is, when it is rather the Paleocon take to soften the backlash against Jewry, particularly diasporic American Jewry, rooting its Abrahamic world view (and proxy Enlightenment values) by being not so strongly pro Israel and focusing rather on this “fusionism” of Abrahamism and Enlightenment values domestically.

Paul Gottfried was instrumental in getting the Regnery circus and with it, Sam Francis’ replacement, Richard Spencer, behind the sexed up paleocon 2.0 that became the Alt Right against “the left”, but its spiraling into a facile and fragile coalition (tentosphere) of the anti-social alliance (trap) that Spencer and Regnery manifest was a popular but toxic reaction (trap) in the coalitions’s Germanophilia - the common ground they have with Gottfried to begin with in this right wing, anti- left make-shift alliance.

By 2008 Paul Gottfried recognized that both the neo-con brand and the paleocon brand had shot their wad in terms of marketable brand name. If he was to be able to co-opt the White vote in order to use it to put the ultimately neo-liberal / pro Israel, while friendly enough to Jewish diaspora Republican party back in power, useful to Jews and oligarchs as usual, he needed to re-brand the agenda as something other than neocon, something other than paleocon even, rather as something “new”, “rebellious”, “anti-establishment” and the term and general concept of the Alternative Right was born - essentially not a big tent, but a tentosphere (a tent of tents) of anti-social types (anti-“leftist” was to be the common angle that they were seeded: meaning anti- the (((distorted and abusive))) social advocacy of (((“PC”))) - which, from a White ethnonational standpoint, should rather have been called by the term liberalism or cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt school). In order to be accepted into the Alternative Right tentosphere one had to be against this, what they called “The Left” and was duty-bound to tolerate one another’s guiding anti-social organizing ideologies - for any of a gamut of stigma, ranging from adulation of Jesus, Darwin, Abraham or Hitler - Jew friendly Alt Lite to Hard Right Hitler idolatry - you didn’t have to be in a particular tent of the tentosphere, but you had to treat its given array of tents as valid ....until perhaps the paleocon finally came to power. Then your job as an Alt Righter, your duty to use Whites to resurrect the Republican party and the reason for the fame you could not believe had been granted you was done - unless, perhaps, you remain sufficiently Abrahamic or otherwise stigmatically, didactically right wing enough to be sufficiently yoked.

It is all more sinister than that as you hear Steve Bannon, believing himself to be objectively the ultimate pragmatist on behalf of Western ideals, having affixed himself like a fat, blood-filled tic, valencing, full, sucking goy blood, the ultimate Shabbos Goy - vectoring the horizontal transmission of the bracket.

America’s and Europe’s White ethno-national bases are being sucked and directed into friend enemy distinctions exactly as the brackets see fit according to their evil Abrahamic god.

Whites may be allowed to live as useful cows, technoslaves or breeding partners for Jews, but otherwise they, like all other ethnicities besides Jews, are to be bred-out with others.

Paleocon world view, the Frank Meyer world view supplants what should be the friend / enemy distinctions for White ethno-nationalism.

Whereas the fundamental outgroups if not enemies should be Jews, Muslims, blacks and liberal traitors (in the case of Whites, usually operating under some right wing ideas, notably Christianity, Austrian school objectivism, supremacism, yes, paleoconservatism too, etc).

And against them, the fundamental in-groups should be White ethnonationalisms in alliance with Asian ethno-nationalisms…

Instead the Abrahamic world view determines the friend enemy distinction:

America’s (((controlled))) proposition nation is “us” if not our “friend”; Israel, Jews, at least the “nice” ones, are “us” if not our “friends”, the (((Russian Federation - parasitic propositional empire bigger than the moon; equipped with its Jews and Orthodox church))) is “us”, if not our “friend”; blacks, their staggering population explosion, bio-power and hyper-assertiveness are “us”, if not our “friends”; Islam, especially “moderate” Islam is “us” if not our “friend”: these shock troops and compradors are marshaled against White and Asian ethnonationalisms in alliance.

Bannon puts the major friend-enemy distinction as the brackets would have it in stark relief -

Buzzfeed, Steve Bannon: “The Judeo-Christian West versus atheists. The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it’s the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East.

In the meantime, Richard Spencer has had a wad of Jewish scum shot all over his face - he and the Alternative Right have been used by the Republicans and the YKW as usual. Now for the futile reaction, also part of the plan…along with the placation:

Buzzfeed News, “This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World” 16 Nov 2016:

The soon-to-be White House chief strategist laid out a global vision in a rare 2014 talk, one where he said racism in the far right gets “washed out” and called Vladimir Putin a kleptocrat. BuzzFeed News publishes the complete transcript for the first time.

Donald Trump’s newly named chief strategist and senior counselor, Steve Bannon, laid out his global nationalist vision in unusually in-depth remarks delivered by Skype to a conference held inside the Vatican in the summer of 2014.

Well before victories for Brexit and Trump seemed possible, Bannon declared there was a “global tea party movement” and praised European far-right parties like Great Britain’s UKIP and France’s National Front. Bannon also suggested that a racist element in far-right parties “all gets kind of washed out,” that the West was facing a “crisis of capitalism” after losing its “Judeo-Christian foundation,” and he blasted “crony capitalists” in Washington for failing to prosecute bank executives over the financial crisis.

The remarks — beamed into a small conference room in a 15th-century marble palace in a secluded corner of the Vatican — were part of a 50-minute Q&A during a conference focused on poverty hosted by the Human Dignity Institute, which BuzzFeed News attended as part of its coverage of the rise of Europe’s religious right. The group was founded by Benjamin Harnwell, a longtime aide to Conservative member of the European Parliament Nirj Deva to promote a “Christian voice” in European politics. The group has ties to some of the most conservative factions inside the Catholic Church; Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the most vocal critics of Pope Francis who was ousted from a senior Vatican position in 2014, is chair of the group’s advisory board.

BuzzFeed News originally posted a transcript beginning 90 seconds into the then-Breitbart News chairman’s remarks because microphone placement made the opening mostly unintelligible, but we have completed the transcript from a video of the talk on YouTube. You can hear the whole recording at the bottom of the post.

Here is what he said, unedited:

Steve Bannon: Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in this. We’re speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in Los Angeles. Um. I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis. And it’s really the organizing principle of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people throughout the world. Principally in the west, but we’re expanding internationally to let people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.

It’s ironic, I think, that we’re talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at the exact moment we’re talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century in mankind’s history. Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100 years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace. There was trade, there was globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians. Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were over a million casualties.

That war triggered a century of barbaric — unparalleled in mankind’s history — virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we’re children of that: We’re children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.

But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not just the heroism of our people — whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the Polish resistance fighters, or it’s the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it’s the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East.

READ MORE...

Guess which group of people the Americans got played by this time? The usual. Israel. Yet again!

We time travel to ‘discover’ the horrifying truth which is that those two tendencies—Alt-Right and Alt-Lite—are actually one and the same.

Looking at what white people ‘accomplished’ through the American election, it’s possible to give a general assessment of the present state of play. Being Asian confers on me a certain kind of critical distance from the whole situation, which I will leverage to maximum effect now.

Huwhite Americans cast ballots for Donald Trump when the choice was placed in front of them, and in doing so they delivered a stinging slap to the faces of the supposedly shadowy circle of Vietnamese rice-farmers, Laotian basket-weavers, Chinese assembly-line workers, Mexican auto technicians and Guatemalan strawberry growers who have been manipulating the world from behind the scenes through the nefarious but curiously honest-looking work that they do with their hands. Or something.

There’s no word yet on whether supposedly ‘awakened’ ballot-casting huwhite Americans will ever take a rest from attacking Asian and Hispanic working people for a single moment in history, nor is there any word as to whether huwhite Americans will get around to perhaps attenuating the power of the Jewish-American advocacy groups which are operating in America.

So far, Donald Trump has been pretty chaotic and disordered in the assembly of his transition team, but these are some of the effects observed so far:

• Trump says that he’s going to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. In his own words, “We have to come up, and we can come up with many different plans. In fact, plans you don’t even know about will be devised because we’re going to come up with plans—health care plans—that will be so good.” Anyone who has read the Mandate for Leadership series from the Heritage Foundation can get a guess at what those ‘plans you do not even know about’ are going to look like.


• Walid Phares is Donald Trump’s Senior National Security Advisor and he says, “The Iran deal will be dismantled.”


• John Bolton is milling around in the middle of all this somehow, and he thinks that the US should carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and that the US “could do a thorough job of destruction”.


• Emerging Markets reacted to the Trump win by moving toward resource extraction industries, creating an appearance that the markets had panicked and then recovered, when in fact what happened was a restructuring of the market’s direction.


• Warren Buffet came out to say that he is ‘100%’ optimistic about America. And then the same Alt-Right people who professed to have voted for Donald Trump in order to crush the fortunes of allegedly Jewish-American financiers, non-ironically used the apparent buoyant mood of the Dow Jones Industrial Index and S&P 500 as an argument for why the decidedly not-crushed fortunes of the aforementioned in fact somehow indicate that everything worked out just as planned. Can anyone square that circle?


• Donald Trump wants Jared Kushner—his son in law—to actually be given a security clearance. Really! There is a procedural obstacle to that, since there is a law that was introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson to prevent people from placing their own relatives into top cabinet positions, which had been crafted in an attempt to prevent John F. Kennedy from being able to appoint Robert Kennedy to his cabinet. But Trump is trying to find a way around this so that he can get clearance for Kushner to read classified documents.


• The election of Donald Trump has allowed all the career GOP politicians who were under threat, to “ride the long coat tails”—as Paul Ryan put it—of that election into congress on Trump’s name-recognition.


• The electoral centre of gravity in the US is now moving back toward the midwest industrial region, supposedly.


• Trump will be able to appoint two new Federal Reserve governors, and quite importantly, will be able to reform how it operates in a way that will grant congress—his congress—more control over its actions.


• Medicare and Medicaid will probably be slashed in stages. It will be rationalised under the logic that Trump’s infrastructure spending ‘has to be balanced with spending cuts’ to try to bring it as close to being revenue-neutral as possible, and one of the political methods by which this will be accomplished is by changing the CPI measurement which is being used to index the provision of those services.


• The US will not be signing the TPP, and may be inclined to initiate a trade war through the imposition of tariffs against Asian countries, particularly a 45% tariff against China which will have knock-on effects right across all the supply chains of all Asian manufacturers.


• Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg claims that it would be “crazy” to suggest that his deliberate tolerance for the proliferation of ‘fake news’ on Facebook could have affected the outcome of the US election, even though 40% of Americans get their news through links on Facebook, and even as the Russian government was exploiting that reality so as to carry out an Active Measures campaign on behalf of Donald Trump.


• Donald Trump claims that the Louisville Assembly Plant in Louisville, Kentucky, will be remaining in Kentucky and not moving to Mexico, because of the influence of the Trump election. This is an interesting statement because firstly, it is a lie. The presently existing UAW contract does not permit Ford to close and relocate any of its existing American factories, and furthermore Ford only began assembling cars there in 2015 after having sank a USD $130 million capital investment into it. Ford was never going to move that factory. The second interesting thing about Trump’s false statement—which he of course issued over Twitter—is that it was immediately taken as ‘fact’ by a whole host of ‘news’ sites who didn’t even bother to give the statement a cursory fact check before vectoring it to their hundreds of millions of viewers.

And that’s not even half of it. The next four years will involve all of that and more, in overdrive.

Story Time

While all of that is going on, white American racial advocates are crowing about how ‘the neocons were stopped’. Alt-Right triumphalism seems to be presently centred around the celebration of the alleged defeat of ‘the neocons’ which was supposedly effected through the electoral victory of Trump.

If you were to listen uncritically to Kevin MacDonald, you’d think that this had occurred:

Occidental Observer, ‘An Historic, Quite Possibly Revolutionary Victory!’, 09 Nov 2016:

[...] Trump accomplished a hostile takeover of the Republican Party and won without the support or with only lukewarm and vacillating support from much of the GOP elite.

[...]

Trump has unmasked the neocons. The neocons have dominated the intellectual and foreign policy establishment of the Republican Party since the 1980s. [...] I would be shocked if neocons were given any role in the GOP.

Norman Podhoretz disagrees with Kevin MacDonald, however:

Times of Israel, ‘Norman Podhoretz, the last remaining ‘anti-anti Trump’ neoconservative’, 07 Sep 2016 (emphasis added)

[...] “Many of the younger — they’re not so young anymore — neoconservatives have gone over to the Never Trump movement. And they are extremely angry with anybody who doesn’t share their view,” he recently told The Times of Israel. “But I describe myself as anti-anti Trump. While I have no great admiration for him, to put it mildly, I think she’s worse. Between the two, he’s the lesser evil.”

In a wide-ranging phone interview last week, the former longtime editor of Commentary magazine discussed what he thinks of the race and its implications for Israel. A critic of the Clintons since they gained national prominence decades ago, Podhoretz said the former secretary of state’s role in creating the conditions for the Iran nuclear deal is itself enough reason to support her rival.

[...]

“I once said that Trump is Pat Buchanan without the anti-Semitism,” he said. “By that, I meant that he seemed to be a nativist, an isolationist, and a protectionist. Those are sort of the three pillars of the Buchanan political creed. But whereas Buchanan really believes that stuff, I don’t think Trump does. I think he’s perfectly capable of turning on a dime on each one of those issues.”

Because Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is an Orthodox Jew and his daughter, Ivanka, converted, he said Trump would likely be “predisposed” toward sympathy with Israel. “But again, I’m not saying I would confidently predict what he would do as president,” he added. “I only have a sort of hunch.” [...]

Meanwhile, Mike Pence is going to be Vice President, and it’s worth remembering that he said this in 2011:

CSPAN, ‘U.S. Foreign Policy Priorities’, 01 Mar 2011 (emphasis added):

MIKE PENCE: Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank the Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] for her testimony and for her service to the country. It is good to see you back before the committee. I also want to thank you specifically for the efforts by the administration and your offices to further isolate Libya during a time of extraordinary tragedy in the streets, tragedy of which I think we are probably only partially aware. I want to continue to encourage and urge the administration to stand with those that are standing in that now-bifurcated country to use all means at our disposal to provide support and certainly associate myself with Mr. Royce’s comments about isolating radio communications and would express appreciation for your efforts at Geneva and elsewhere to facilitate a coordinated international response, including a no-fly zone. Qadhafi must go. I am grateful to hear the Secretary of State and the administration take that position unambiguously.

Some readers may be expressing surprise. “What, you remembered that?” Yes, I remember it, because I have a memory—especially when it comes to war—that goes back more than four and a half seconds. Donald Trump also supported intervention in Libya and then turned around afterwards and pretended that he didn’t.

Steven K. Bannon is on the transition team, and he also manages Breitbart. This Breitbart here:

Breitbart / Larry Solov, ‘Breitbart News Network: Born In The USA, Conceived In Israel’, 17 Nov 2015 (emphasis added):

A lot of people don’t realize this but Breitbart News Network really got its start in Jerusalem. It was the summer of 2007, and Andrew had been invited to tour Israel as part of a media junket. I agreed to tag along as his lawyer and best friend. What neither of us knew at the time was that the trip would change our lives and give us the inspiration for Breitbart News Network.

One night in Jerusalem, when we were getting ready for dinner, Andrew turned to me and asked if I would de-partner from the 800-person law firm where I was practicing and become business partners with him. He said he needed my help to create a media company. He needed my help to “change the world.”

Perhaps it was because we were in such an historic place, or because I was energized by the courage of the Jewish people in the Holy Land, or maybe it was the alcohol at cocktail hour, but I said “yes.”

We were blown away by the spirit, tenacity, and resourcefulness of the Israeli people on that trip. Andrew could be quite convincing, not to mention inspiring, and I decided right there and then to “throw away” (my Mom’s phrase) a perfectly good, successful and safe career in order to start a “new media” company with Andrew Breitbart out of his basement and my home office.

From that humble beginning grew Breitbart News Network.

One thing we specifically discussed that night was our desire to start a site that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel. We were sick of the anti- Israel bias of the mainstream media and J-Street. By launching Breitbart Jerusalem, the journey comes full circle and a promise between two friends is fulfilled. And in a very real sense, Breitbart News Network returns to its roots.

Larry Solov is President and CEO of Breitbart News Network.

Kevin MacDonald himself effectively advertises the fact that he knows that Steven K. Bannon is not anti-semitic in the slightest, by having Marcus Alethia write it on the very same site—the Occidental Observer—which he is the editor of:

Occidental Observer / Marcus Alethia Ph.D., ‘Anti-Semitism as Political Assassination: The Smearing of Steve Bannon’, 15 Nov 2016 (emphasis added):

The corporate media would have us believe that President-Elect Trump’s newly appointed Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor Stephen K Bannon is a raging anti-Semite, and “white supremacist.” Though best known now for his role in the Trump campaign, Bannon is a former US Naval officer, Goldman Sachs banker, director of Earth-science research at Biosphere 2, film producer, and chairman of Breitbart News. Over the last 24 hours he has been subjected to a well-orchestrated crescendo of op-eds and tweets attacking his character and political views.

[...] The media know that the charge of anti-Semitism is tremendously damaging. If they get away with using this on Bannon, I fear they will continue using it towards many others associated with the Trump administration. They go low. Period.

The fact that this is a smear without foundation seem obvious from statements made by Jewish friends and associates of Bannon.  Former Breitbart reporter Ben Shapiro left the news site after a falling out with Bannon, and there is no love lost between the two. Yet he writes, “I have no evidence that Bannon’s a racist or that he’s an anti-Semite.” David Horowitz states that the accusation is completely without foundation.  Milo Yiannopoulos, one of Breitbart’s main writers, wrote many of the headlines Bannon is currently under fire for, and he’s half Jewish. Orthodox Jew Joel Pollack, Breitbart staff writer, states “Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader,” and he goes on to say that not only is Bannon not anti-Semitic, “if anything, he is overly sensitive about it, and often takes offense on Jews’ behalf.” [...]

I could go on listing examples of egregious pro-Israel signs within the Trump transition team indefinitely, but I won’t. I’ve made my point there.

There is also some sad comedy to be found in the fact that here I am penning this article in which I attack Steven Bannon on the basis that he is too friendly to Israel, and then I look on Occidental Observer and find them running an article that is literally written by a Zionist who is defending Bannon from the charge of anti-semitism. Well, okay!

Get into the Delorean

The next thing that I want to do is show that contrary to the opinion of those who think that the ‘Alt-Lite’, is a watered-down version of the ‘Alt-Right’ on the subject of Israel and Jewish advocacy groups, the real truth is that the ‘Alt-Lite’ was what the ‘Alt-Right’ really was all along.

How do I know this? I know it by time-travelling to the year 2010, and ‘rediscovering’ that the Alt-Right’s active compromise with Jews was actually on the agenda all along, because the present situation is a hypothetical that Kevin MacDonald and Steve Sailer had already entertained back then. They indicated that they would accept it if it should ever happen to manifest in front of them.

See here:

VDARE / Steve Sailer, ‘Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberal? Not Good Enough’, 25 Oct 2009 (emphasis added):

[...]

As I noted in my VDARE.COM article The Cuban Compromise, Jews, like Cubans, have earned the right to special privileges due to their political power. Just as Cuban exiles have controlled American foreign policy toward Cuba and won their relatives unique status as refugees rather than immigrants, America can afford to let Israel push around the Palestinians because it pleases a domestic bloc.

And, in the unlikely event of something terrible happening to the Jewish state, we would no doubt grant refugee status to Israeli Jews.

But what America can`t continue to afford is the pervasive unrealism imposed by the current code of silence about Jewish power and interests.

Thus Jewish demonization of immigration reform patriots appears to have two motivations:

• A reasonable concern about Israelis, which can be assuaged by special accommodations
• An unreasonable form of ancestor worship, which couldn`t survive satire, but is protected by the current taboos

And this demonization is the single most important reason that America’s immigration disaster is still above criticism, long after it has become obvious that it is a disaster, and despite the fact that an overwhelming number of Americans are strongly opposed to it.

Jews will do fine when they compete openly in the marketplace of ideas. They don’t have to rig the market as well.

Of course, the compromise that Sailer is willing to make does not only involve Palestine, but actually involves doing just about anything for Israel on command, since Israel’s security concerns certainly do not extend only to cover Palestine.

What do I mean by this?

I’ll quote Kevin MacDonald to illustrate the American position even more clearly:

Occidental Observer / Kevin MacDonald, ‘Lawrence Auster Gets Unhinged’, 23 Apr 2010 (emphasis added):

[...]

I am perfectly happy for Jews to live where they want. I just wish they would not continue to oppose the interests of people like me.  Obviously, in saying this, I am implying that I don’t believe in genetic determinism in the area of political choices. It is within the power of Jews to change their political behavior. In fact, rather than behaving like mindless robots acting out of a genetic imperative, Jews have always been flexibly responsive to historical contingencies, and this agrees with everything we know about human psychology.

It really doesn’t matter if groups with little power and influence oppose the interests of White Americans. But it matters greatly if a substantial component of the elite in terms of wealth as well as political power and media influence opposes our interests and brings to economic ruin and political oblivion anyone (Jew or non-Jew) who comes to our defense.

Nor do I have any conceptual problem with Jews living in Israel. As I wrote in my previous comments on Auster, I would be willing to make a quid pro quo with the organized Jewish community: If you support white ethno-nationalism in the US and provide intensive, effective support for ending and reversing the immigration policy of recent decades (i.e., something approaching the support you presently provide Israel), I would be willing to go to the wall to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel, even at substantial cost for the US.

The election of Donald Trump and his transitional team, could be an example of the kind of ‘quid pro quo’ which MacDonald might have been describing in 2010. Other than mental retardation, that’s the only other logical explanation for why MacDonald and large sections of the Alt-Right are actually celebrating the rise of Donald Trump.

Supporting Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel also has ramifications such as being compelled to defend Israel from whatever threats Jewish advocacy groups perceive as emanating from Syria. Views which look like they are parodies of themselves, end up being taken seriously:

The Algemeiner, ‘Israeli Officials: We’d Prefer Al-Qaeda-Run Syria to an Assad Victory’, 04 Jun 2013 (emphasis added):

Israeli officials are voicing their concern over Bashar al-Assad’s recent advances in his country’s civil war, Israeli Army Radio reported.

According to Israel Hayom, senior Israeli officials were quoted as saying that “al-Qaeda control over Syria would be preferable to a victory by Assad over the rebels.”

Officials believe that an Assad victory would strengthen Iran, as a weakened Syrian regime would become more reliant on the Islamic Republic. The Iran-Hezbollah-Syria axis would thus become an even greater threat to Israel, the officials said.

“Assad is now Iran,” the officials said, according to Israel Hayom. “Any of these [Al-Qaeda] groups would be less problematic for Israel than an Assad regime that is a puppet of Iran,” the officials were quoted as saying.

Would Kevin MacDonald be willing to ‘go’ to that particular ‘wall’ to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel, if organised Jewish advocacy groups are willing to ease the process of mass deportations and the construction of a border structure between the United States and Mexico? Is Kevin MacDonald willing to literally invade Syria and ramp up the involvement of the US Army in Central Asia before also going kinetic against Iran, in exchange for Jewish-Americans in the American media lending their tacit support to a crackdown against Hispanics?

That seems to be the actual substance of the frankly squalid ‘quid pro quo’ that MacDonald is willing to make if it’s applied to the situation in 2016.

But there’s more:

PJ Media / David P. Goldman, ‘Trump is the Best Thing That Has Happened to Israel in Years’, 14 Nov 2016 (emphasis added):

[...] The Establishment is floored and flummoxed. It doesn’t understand what it did wrong, it doesn’t understand why it has been evicted from power, and it can only explain its miserable situation as the consequence of an evil conspiracy. In short, the Establishment is having a paranoid tantrum, compounding its humiliation with a public meltdown. Sadly, that includes liberal Jews.

Trump’s election is the best thing that has happened to Israel in many years. It eliminates the risk of a diplomatic stab in the back at the Security Council and sends a dire warning to Iran, the only real existential threat to the Jewish State. The security of the Jewish people in their homeland is vastly enhanced by the vote on November 8, and Jews everywhere should thank God that the head of state of the world’s most powerful country is a friend of Israel with Jewish grandchildren. Instead of slanders, Jews should offer up prayers of Thanksgiving.

Oh. Well, that’s awkward for the Alt-Right. I guess the confusion has arisen from the fact that liberals and Jewish advocacy groups had been seeing Donald Trump surrounded by throngs of white nationalists—some of whom professed to be anti-semitic—and so the Jewish advocacy groups began to assume that that where there is smoke, there is fire. Wrong assumption.

Little did the liberals and Jewish advocacy groups know that in fact American white nationalists—some of whom professed to be anti-semitic—actually supported and voted for the single most pro-Jewish candidate in the history of the United States, and they did this in order to spite Hispanics and Asians who had nothing to do with anything.

In other words, American white nationalists basically clowned themselves, for tariffs and the promise of a border wall.

Art of the Possible?

I couldn’t end this article without talking about what is practical, so here it is. The most comprehensive course of action would have been to build a movement from the ground up which was capable of addressing the issues that needed to be addressed without also scaring people away. I previously talked about what that could look like in the most basic sense here:

Majorityrights.com / Kumiko Oumae, ‘Donald Trump stares into the abyss in Iowa as it stares into him. And also you.’, 31 Jan 2016 (emphasis added):
[...] It is said that economic power precedes political power. Where does economic power come from? Not strictly from an abundance of wealth, but rather, from controlled scarcity. For example, if I had control of all water in a country, my power over its governance would be unrivalled. But if everyone could create disparate water-fountains everywhere without my permission, then my power would vanish almost immediately. The same logic applies to political movements, if they are to have any power in the material world at all, then they have to be able to make credible bargains [and threats].

In the context of American ethno-nationalist movement figures who claim to appreciate the merits of National Socialism or some variant of it, which kind of economic power should they be aiming to control? They should be aiming to control the one thing which is in abundance everywhere. The people’s labour power. Most people in the United States have only their labour power that they can either choose to give to an employer or withhold from an employer, and any movement that were to gain the ability to switch labour on or off at will and at mass, would be one of the most powerful lobbies in the United States. Given that labour union density in the United States hovers around a pathetic figure like 10%, it is not like there is much competition in that realm from the liberals or anyone else.

Despite this, year after year Americans do nothing other than wait for the next white saviour to descend and save them, while paradoxically festooning their websites with the symbols of a labour movement that actually emerged as a ‘workers party’ from the ground up and not from the top down. [...]

However, Americans are apparently too lazy to take a national syndicalist path, so that didn’t happen and of course isn’t happening. In fact, it’s unlikely to ever happen, because the specific social and economic conditions in the US almost guarantee that it won’t happen.

The only option besides that would be to have ironically just let Hillary Clinton win, when the competition between Trump and Hillary manifested. If Hillary Clinton had won, everything would continue on as it has been going since 2008 except with the added bonus of there being maximum legislative gridlock. A multiplicity of lobbyists all competing for attention in a frenetic circle of Clinton Foundation connections that span every sector and every ethnic group across the globe would have also been present, which would have at least provided a somewhat open doorway for various divergent interests to push on the ship of state and potentially alter its trajectory. Maybe.

Hillary Clinton was frequently derided as basically an influence-peddling whore, and she is indeed that. But I have always said that a multifaceted whore should be preferred over a monogamously pro-Israel candidate. Clinton was also the more predictable of the two candidates because everyone had read all of her emails, and most alphabet agencies in Europe and Asia had basically mapped out all of the relationships she had in the digital realm.

With the election of Donald Trump, all of the multifacetedness goes away, and there is a total consolidation of Jewish-American lobby power behind Trump which is not structurally mitigated in any way whatsoever. The learning curve for dealing with him is also steeper. Israel is the only power that has a head start on lobbying him. Furthermore, Trump will have the power to act as a Republican president with a Republican Senate, a Republican House of Representatives, and mostly Republican state legislatures across the United States.

Objectively speaking, if the Alt-Right’s professed intent was to decrease the potential power of Jewish advocacy groups in the United States, the world is about to discover in January 2017 that the Alt-Right have actually accomplished the exact opposite of that as a result of bringing about the election of Donald Trump.

Does this seem complicated?

Zionists have commented in the past that ‘none of this this was seamless’:

Commentary Magazine / Tevi Troy, ‘How the GOP went Zionist’, 01 Dec 2015 (emphasis added):

[...] For the first 45 years of Israel’s existence, the Republican Party was deeply divided when it came to the Middle East. Powerful forces inside the GOP had long been at best uncomfortable with Israel and at worst openly hostile. Those forces included big businessmen and oilmen with deep connections and interests in Arab lands and so-called foreign-policy realists who did not see why the U.S. should maintain a special relationship with a tiny, economically negligible country surrounded by 22 Arab nations that wished it would disappear.

[...]

Following Reagan’s lead and influenced by the neoconservatives who had gravitated to the GOP, pro-Israel voices became more confident in expressing their view of the ties that bound the United States and the Jewish state—the same monotheistic roots, which disposed them to an appreciation for human dignity and self-determination, and a shared belief in a covenantal founding of both nations. This view helped the GOP establish an ideological framework for foreign policy beyond the binary question of Communist versus anti-Communist.

None of this was seamless. Reagan was succeeded by George H.W. Bush, himself quite literally a Country Club Republican and oilman by birth and occupation and a foreign-policy realist by disposition. He famously complained about the Israel lobby, saying ludicrously that he, the president, was “one lonely guy” up against “some powerful political forces” made up of “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” His secretary of state, James Baker, was even worse, earning the wrong kind of immortality with his line, “F— the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Even as these attacks were going on, there were signs that Bush had already become an anachronism in a rapidly changing world—most notably the fact that the Baker line was leaked to the press by his disgusted fellow cabinet secretary Jack Kemp, a key figure in remaking the party as pro-Israel.

If some people were lazy and just wanted to work within the GOP system against Jewish lobby groups, it would have been at least more logical to have tried to rehabilitate the ‘Texan faction’, also known as the Anglo-Saxon Country Club Republicans and oilmen (popular plebeian misconceptions about their role aside). Those kinds of networks would be the most likely places to find ways to subtly reorient the direction of the United States, or at least to slow down the present direction.

Incomprehensibly, the Alt-Right instead chose to use the power of memetics amplified by Russian Active Measures, to stand themselves squarely behind a German real estate developer from the Northeast of the United States whose family has literally married into Jewish blood. Trump then won the GOP primary.

The Alt-Right emerged onto the scene and found that Jewish advocacy groups were very influential already, and they have now—absurdly—taken actions which have only enhanced the influence of those advocacy groups even more.

People often council against playing within the system. Not only did the Alt-Right choose to play within the system despite being warned about the hazards involved anyway, they also did so in the most incompetent way possible. Whatever the ultra-Zionist Trump administration does in the next eight (yes, eight) years will be placed definitively on the Alt-Right’s epitaph because they championed him all the way into the Oval Office, and Trump’s legacy—which is going to be awful when viewed from any possible angle—will be forever associated with that designation. Anyone who doubts this, only needs to look at the Wikipedia article for ‘Alt-Right’ and take note of how much ideological garbage has piled up there. It’s about as coherent as one of Trump’s speeches when it’s taken at face value.

Conclusion

Contrary to popular understanding, the ‘Alt-Lite’ is not a watered down variant of the ‘Alt-Right’, rather, the ‘Alt-Lite’ is the actual manifest reality which is revealed in plain view once the ‘Alt-Right’ text is subjected to symptomatic reading and everyone is confronted with its blank spots, confronted with what it must repress to organise itself in practice, to preserve its rhetorical consistency and its allegedly anti-semitic narrative.

The ‘Alt-Right’ should be understood as an ongoing storytelling session which allows an objectively pro-semitic pro-American outcome in practice, to be represented back to the followers as the opposite of what it actually is. The ‘Alt-Right’ is always and permanently in a pseudo-battle against the ‘Alt-Lite’ reality it creates, and it maintains its cohesion in the social media space through the attestation of the adherent to the ‘purity’ of ‘really being anti-semitic’ despite this. As such, there is ‘always more work to be done’.

Adherents are consumed in the process of always trying to verbally ‘purify’ their intentions but never actually accomplishing their stated objectives, because they are in fact standing in the middle of the swamp without any actual socioeconomic plan for how to drain that swamp.