|
|
|
‘Give-em-Hell Trump’ re-normalizing social classification & discrimination - very good, but.. ..give ‘who’ hell? For Jewish academics to play both sides of “PC” is nothing new. While the re-normalization and motion to institutionalize social classification is a positive development - via ‘give-em-hell Trump’ in his campaign talk - the most important issue in the end, is not just normalization, but where the lines of institutionalized discrimination are to be drawn.
Trump is saying some things that we might like to hear, with a candor that purports contempt for “political correctness”, a candor that has not been heard from the last 11 Presidents at least, spanning more than 60 years. With that, he flouts the avoidance of “racial profiling” for having allowed the San Bernadino attack. It is indeed a positive development to assert the validity of “race” as a criteria.
Moreover, he takes the validity of “profiling”, i.e., classifying people, a bit further to say that there should be a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
Yes, it is a candor and a disdain for pseudo-intellectual and polite appearance that we have not heard from a President since “give-em-hell Harry Truman.” Excellent though it is that race and other social classifications, and borders, are being re-invoked by “give-em-hell Trump” and that he is taking steps to re-normalize and re-institutionalize these criteria as a legitimate basis for discrimination… one might wonder what, say, Japanese, et al., might think about who-for and how the “no-nonsense” lines are being drawn. Playing “for/against PC” is nothing new for Jewish academia; i.e., one side playing “vanguard” while the other is “hand of restraint.”
The restrained activist vs the activist vanguardist In a generation before, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter* played the role of “restraint,” viz., the role of “activist restraint” opposed to “activist vanguard” - a role that shabbos goy Earl Warren was duped to take the lead in, as Chief Justice of an “activist Court.” We should be on the watch as well, then, for the shabbos goy being fore-fronted as the “vanguard activist”, as: Earl Warren was for the 1954 de-segregation (integration) decision and 1964 ”civil rights” legislation.. Teddy Kennedy was for the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act, Either Trump or Hillary Clinton can be used for - what? - we might not know exactly what for sure yet, other than that it would be another travesty. Hillary Clinton may well fit the role of shabbos goy “vanguardist” for their next demonstration of “chutzpah.”
Note: As it bears more attention, this article is duplicated from the MR News section, where it was originally published, 8 December 2015. Comments:2
Posted by Wilders endorses Trump on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:29 | #
One of Europe’s most “respected” patriot leaders? Not here. On the contrary, Wilder’s implied endorsement is not much different than having a seal of approval from Pam Geller.
3
Posted by shabbos goy "vanguardism" on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 10:51 | # Who will fit the role of shabbos goy “vanguardist” for their next demonstration of “chutzpah” ?
4
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:40 | # On re-examining this article, I can say that I think that you’ve actually hit onto something truly amazing here. The idea of a ‘restrained vanguard’, is the perfect description of what is occurring. Having watched Trump’s most recent speech, and the reactions to it, not only is the actual substance of what he’s saying a lot less hard hitting than the media makes it out to be, but additionally there is a way of speaking that Trump is using, which allows him to be interpreted in whatever way a person would like him to be interpreted. He doesn’t give really concrete explanations of what he’s doing and how he’s intending to make it happen. Not even on his website. This allows people to essentially fill in the blanks in whatever way they’d like. People are simply hearing what they want to hear at this stage. 5
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:51 | # It can be an even more complex systemic working-out of the language game - of “activist restraint vs activist vanguard” - in that various parties opposing Trump are made out to be “restrained/restraining activism” while Hillary and her supporters, for example, would act-into the role of necessary “activist vanguard” to bravely go forward and protect our “rights”... inasmuch as those ‘rights’ suit Jewish interests. Typically, you can expect to hear some “sympathy” for what Trump is saying - quote, “restraint” by acknowledging that he has some points. However, after some lip service is paid, the issues would then be put behind and ignored. Failing that (Trump is elected), they’d try to use him in one or the other role as an “activist” for “rights” - i.e., liberalism - no matter what.
6
Posted by Republican debate on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:41 | # Highlights of Republican debate according to CNN - presents Cruz and Rubio..
CNN apparently wants to present Cruz and Rubio as “the serious” candidates while it is hoped that Trump will sink the GOP’s prospects against Hillary as he anchors his loyalty to the party. 7
Posted by Hillary steps-up "activist vanguardism" on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:15 | # Meanwhile, Hillary goes full throttle in her role as “activist vanguardist.”
9
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 04:35 | # There was another presidential candidate who ran in 2008 who was against Mexican immigration and is against an alien invasion into the US that Trump seems to be unwittingly replicating. 10
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:02 | # It’s really an amazing debate, because so many things were touched on, it would take me several posts to address all of the things that were addressed by the various candidates. First though, I’ll tackle the issues that Donald Trump raised at the beginning of the debate, which should be of great importance. When he comes out with this list of apparent opponents, ‘Mexico, China, Japan’, and ‘Iran’, it’s a very strange combination. I believe that his advisors must be Jews, because these are the kind of concerns that they would come up with. Trump realistically has no possibility of being able to alter the relationship with Mexico, China, and Japan, because he would be structurally subordinate to the WTO which asserts that these countries are not doing anything that contradicts what is permissible in the presently-existing economic order. In the case of China in particular, Trump strikes many emotional chords among his audience by repeatedly harping on how China is allegedly ‘undervaluing its currency’, and this gets him a lot of support. However, China’s currency, according to the IMF is not actually undervalued at all. That’s why the IMF is accepting the Chinese Yuan into the SDR basket. So a hypothetical ‘President Trump’ would not be able to do much to alter the relationship, and might even find himself simply blustering and saying that “They changed because I was elected”, even though no change occurred, and even if change had occurred in line with his ascendancy to the presidency, it would not be because of him, it would be a case of correlation not being causation. Almost all of his rhetoric about China, and to a large extent Japan, is just noise-making to garner support. And possibly because his Jewish advisors are jealous of economic success. Regarding Iran, the only people who really want to reverse the Iran deal are Jewish Zionists. Seriously, even among the western establishment, there is no appetite for reversing the Iran deal, because the Iran deal was a crucial part of the 2-decade-long plan to induce Iran to act as a swing state power between NATO and Russia. An Iran more amenable to western cooperation is one that is more capable of supplying an alternative source of natural gas for the European Union, and also is capable of assisting NATO in its objectives in the Caucasus and Central Asia which run contrary to the objectives of Russia. Furthermore, the Iranians never promised Russia that they would not touch things in that area of the world, and they may be a more reliable future collaborator to that end, than Turkey has been thus far. Also, not having a ridiculous waste of time war against Iran, frees up a lot of resources which can be dedicated to solving other problems. And, of course, not having scores of western young people dying in Iran for nothing other than Israel’s narrow concerns about ‘nukes’, is something that is definitely good for western people. Not dying pointlessly tends to be a good thing. This is why Zbigniew Brzezinski laughed and said that he didn’t care, when he was asked by journalists what he thinks of a scenario in which Iran acquired nukes. It’s because he and pretty much everyone in the defence and intelligence community view Iran’s conventional potential threat in the Arab Gulf as the thing that has to be mitigated, not the nuclear so-called threat against Israel. And the generally-held view is that mitigating Iran’s convention potential threat in the Arab Gulf can be done without having to ever ‘go kinetic’ against Iran. For example, Lord Lamont holds the same favourable view of the Iran deal as well, and he was instrumental in helping to bring it about from the British side. It’s clear to me, that Donald Trump’s repeated emphasis of a supposed Iran threat, where he goes as far as call them “a terrorist nation”, is something that was not fed to him by regular Anglo-American advisors, but rather, could only have been fed to him by Jewish advisors. For this reason, I’d like to see if anyone could find a list of the people who are advising Trump, so that it could be made more clear as to which Jews precisely are the ones advising him. There could also be another factor, which is that Donald Trump’s daughter is married to a Jew, and so he may feel that it is his responsibility to protect his daughter’s adopted tribe. Among Trump’s fanboys out there, not a single discussion has been had about his Jewish connections, and his deeply troubling invective against the Iran peace deal. 11
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:28 | #
In regard to China however, there are examples that they are making business/financial inroads to wield leverage. Of course that does not mean that Jews would not still see them as a threat and would not want Trump to posture against China. Particularly as they would also be threatened by China’s and Japan’s massively homogeneous populations and correspondingly powerful nationalism - tough nuts for their weakening by diversity scam to penetrate. 12
Posted by "walls work, just ask".. on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:48 | # “Walls work, just ask the folks in Israel” - Trump 13
Posted by Just Sayin' on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:15 | # “Among Trump’s fanboys out there, not a single discussion has been had about his Jewish connections, and his deeply troubling invective against the Iran peace deal.” Actually, it has been discussed ad nauseam in various alt-right forums. 14
Posted by Just sayin' this in response.. on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:33 | # Perhaps, but one can understand how Kumiko would have that distinct impression given the range of hope shown in Trump among purportedly Jew-wise WNs - ranging from enthusiasm for him as one who will wreck the Republican Party (good), to moving the Overton window on un-PC speech (good), to “the Donald” - by sites like the Daily Stormer which claim Jew vigilance as their mainstay; and Anglin isn’t the only prominent WN figure to be quite optimistic about Trump while professing to have a keen eye on Jewish machinations. 15
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:07 | # Daniel, if you had to choose between the Polish people being mongrelized out of existence by niggers or the Polish people adopting National Socialism to prevent that, what would you choose? 16
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:39 | # Frankly, I see the future of the White race, at least on the North American continent, as melting into an amalgam of the European peoples if it is going survive. Any political system which preserves the blood will be sufficient. 17
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:00 | # And if that’s what it takes, let the Polish plumbers alone to breed with the English. At least their offspring won’t be shitskins. Lulz 18
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:16 | #
I’m glad that you asked me that because it is an important question as it might be honestly posed - though it has not been honestly posed in White Nationalism - I doubt that it has been posed honestly here either. But first of all, I am not more concerned for Polish than I am for other Europeans. I have simply found myself in the position of having to defend them as the demographics of the west and its proclivities have not known enough about them and have sometimes found them a convenient target for derision. The same thing happens to Italians and others. Its easier to direct prejudice that way, for example, than to deride blacks in many instances. But regarding “National Socialism” and whether I would accept it. It is not an honest question and least of all in the terms that it has been posed to White Nationalists circles - i.e., by people who are more accurately characterized as Nazis and advocates of Nazism - merely trying to fly under cover of National Socialism’s better aspects, while we all agree that it had some. My working hypothesis is that Germany stopped being National Socialist no later than the Night of the Long Knives. But even at its best outlines and stages in manifestation, where it was more characteristically national socialist, it held some epistemological mistakes which would have to be corrected. Nevertheless, as it manifest, and as Hitler made clear it was bound to manifest through his worldview, it was not characteristically national socialist. That is why I maintain the term “Nazi” to distinguish its rogue variant….much as I dislike seeming to be on the side of the goodie goodies by using the word “Nazi” pejoratively, it remains a useful designation and distinction. Nazi Germany was imperialist (not nationalist) and elitist to the extreme (not socialist). ..to the extreme of being a dictatorship, even. Nazi Germany also had an idea something like “life is war.” Kill or be killed. Again, I hate to seem like the goodie goodie, but that is too simplistic a notion, especially applied to humans - but even too broadly applied to “nature” - and a dangerous a notion, because it adds the blindness factor of a notion of necessity too closely approximating the physics model of “natural causality” - forces and impacts - that’s just the way it is. Call it national socialism proper, or social nationalism, if it could be ironed out of its serious epistemological blunders of course it is preferable and probably could be a model that most nations could fairly approximate, modifying to their idiosyncrasy. But as it stood ...playing into Jewish hands, their word-smithery etc… as Nazism, slavery and being ruled by fools who would make us fools before the world, stigmatizing (because they over-did it) and disempowering the very necessary capacity for group prejudice and discrimination thereupon for the decades since World War II.. There is no choice. Whether it is Hitler or Malcolm X saying that “the black man will rule” the response is much the same. Nor would I want Germans to accept being slaves or untermenschen. But again, it is a good question because it is a disingenuous game that some people are playing - “don’t call me Nazi, call me national socialist”, when they really don’t deserve the respect of being called national socialists and it does not even accurately describe them. Hadding Scott is good example of that kind of dishonesty. Coming back to the Poles as an example, Pilsudski was a socialist, and the staunchest nationalist and anti Soviet (in the end translates to anti-semite); he had strong adherence. So it isn’t as if some of the major aspects weren’t covered by the Poles themselves. The other major Polish Nationalist, Dmowski, was more Darwinistic, but was also a staunch nationalist and totally anti-semitic - considered Pilsudski far too tolerant of Jews (while Hitler admired Pilsudski). That is just the example of Poland. Anti-Semitism, nationalism and aspects of socialism and meritocracy were everywhere, of course, not the least of all because these are common sense ideas. But crucially, Hitler chose to ignore prospects of working with these aspects in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine because he wanted their land etc. - i.e., because he was an imperialist, supremacist, war monger, not a national socialist. Thus, if the question was honest, the brief form answer would be that some form of national socialism is obviously the better option. But you know and I know that is smoke and mirror word play. It wasn’t national socialism that was being offered. No, that wasn’t for export. Nazism was for export and what was being “offered”. There is only one answer to that offer for sane, self respecting people. 19
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:48 | # As for European mixing it does not bother me too much either - particularly as you get farther away from Europe; and a managed extent is good even here. However, I believe that it is not only preferable, but important - destructive and probably very dangerous if ethnonationalist criteria are not maintained for human ecology and accountability; European mixing should be, probably needs to be, controlled to some possible extent in Europe, especially. But me personally, I see examples of every kind of European woman who would suit me just fine. 20
Posted by Islamic phantoms on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 09:53 | # Women in Burkas always look like phantoms, don’t they?
From the MR News section, 22 Nov 2015, Ripper Locations Then & Now: Islamic imposition - A phantom at the scene of “Polly” Ann Nichols murder… Jack The Ripper Location: Then and Now:
At 1:40 you see the site of the Mary Ann Nichols’ murder on what was then Buck’s Row, London; the image fades to the present day where, by moment 2:05, you see a Muslim woman wearing a burka and emerging from the precise spot of the ripper’s crime.
..somehow, it seems about as spooky. ...an Islamic apparition emerging from the shadows of the place of death..
21
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:22 | #
You may ask, how is it that Bernstein is playing the role of “Activist Restraint” while Kimball altercast the role of “Activist Vanguard” ? Well, because it is noticed that Kimball wants to treat the notion of “the humanities” as if they are “objectively a-political” (the humanities shouldn’t be “politicized”) and along with that, so too would the notion of “rights” be “purely objective.” Therefore, in trying to adhere to sheer objectivity, he would be seen as naive to the inevitable subjective and culturally relative influences in inquiry into these matters of the humanities; and therefore he would be potentially manipulable - cajoled into trying to “lead the way” in terms of “rights” - i.e. deracinated, a-racial “human rights.” In those terms, he’d be played and cajoled into the role of “vanguard activist.” 22
Posted by Tump wants US open to White immigration on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:23 | # To square things off a bit, Trump has advocated loosening restrictions on White immigration to The U.S. I suppose that would have the effect of mitigating their lives as well by throwing them into the multicultural hell-hole that America has become, their children wasted there and their desperate efforts largely going to propping-up the futile system that much longer so that its effects will be more ruinous than ever when they do come into full effect.. meanwhile, fencing the country might best serve the piranha that are already there in the gold-fish bowl of America. Trump advocates opening America’s borders to WHITE Europeans
23
Posted by Alt-right fawning over Trump "embarrassing" on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 23:04 | # Ryan Andrews has this much right:
24
Posted by Hillary emails blackmail for Trump? on Tue, 17 May 2016 06:28 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: Say MORATORIUM! You Can! 10 Reasons. Appeal to R. Goode & Doing Good for Doing Good: The Golden Rule
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:55. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:26. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:49. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View) shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 10:46. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:27. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:48. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:01. (View) |
[/url]
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 17:46 | #
Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about the issue here:
[Youtube]
It’s a pretty good analysis, but it also shows that the first amendment of the US Constitution is double-edged sword.