Profiles - First up, Earl Warren: “Activism” Over “Restraint”

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 20 June 2013 17:50.

An integral case demonstrating the discourse positioning Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter as the hand of restraint and Chief Justice Earl Warren as the overly daring progressive (but still “reasonable centrist, whose position was amicably settled for by”..)

In Justice for all, Earl Warren and the Nation that He Made

Jim Newton, a revolting hack on behalf of Jewish interests at the Los Angeles Times, portrays former Supreme Court Chief Justice, Earl Warren, the prime “Activist.”

Warren and Johnson partaking of a large book

Newton shows us where the term “Activist” came about, viz. in a disingenuous Jewish polemic of The U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren who was categorized as the representative of valiant “Activist” centrists on the court, who went beyond the “Restraint” of fellow Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter.

Hence, the masters of discourse have set the parameters of debate.

With that, Newton stealthily sets Frankfurter’s Jewish machinations into the taken for granted norm while representing Warren as a maverick - rather than as a reactionary dupe, steered by Frankfurter’s designs.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6592640

Firstly, we learn from NPR (that’s not National Puerto Rican Radio, but almost)’s interview of James Newton where the popular connotation of “activism” comes from: it means to act decisively and with unanimity on behalf of liberal principles, as defined by Jewish interests.

“Activism in the judiciary”

Earl Warren, Hugo Black, and William Douglas are rendered by Newton as the “activist” judges, while he follows the portrayal of Felix Frankfurter as the hand of restraint, the very voice of reason.

Frankfuter

In truth, Frankfurter, one of the first Jews on the Supreme Court, was the “activist” on the court (whereas Warren was a reactionary dupe). Frankfurter was chief architect and advocate of the school desegregation that resulted in the Brown vs. Board of Education desegregation decision; in addition to being one of the first Jewish Supreme Court Justices, he was the first Justice to appoint a Negro clerk to the Supreme Court (a clerk who was on the team making diligent and ultimately effective efforts for forced integration, of course). Frankfurter had always had a very “progressive” position.

Yet, Newton refers to Frankfurter as the principle advocate of ‘restrained judiciary.’

As Warren reacted in purist, liberal ideological mechanism, Frankfurter positioned himself as the moderate. While Warren overstepped the “restrained judiciary”, Frankfurter was “concerned” that “the dumb Swede” would run roughshod the court’s jurisdiction and undermine its legitimacy.

Warren took the bait, with typical White ambition in pursuit of innocence and power at once, and was duped into initiative over and against Frankfurter’s “Restraint” (goodness, Frankfurter could have fainted at such importunance) claiming that Restraint “was shirking duty, as one should decide not avoid.”

Thus, Warren self-righteously “led the charge” (was duped into reacting) into desegregation and integrationism.

With his purist “duty” Warren sought a “unanimous court on behalf of Brown” – his singularly marked accomplishment. Any dissent would have “given quarter to opponents.”

In his initial address, exercising his prerogative to speak first before the court upon his nomination as Chief Supreme Court Justice:

Regarding the pending Brown vs. Board of Education decision, and given the background that his recent appointment (as a liberal) foreordained that the court would approve school desegregation, he said, “the only way that segregation can be upheld now” given the court’s banishment of it henceforth, “would be to conclude that Blacks were inferior to Whites.”

Frankfurter and Jackson (the other “restrained member”), being “so restrained” would never want to be so immoderate as to be on the wrong side of such a reasonable judgment. No, they had to humbly accept the position (that Frankfurter’s gang had cunningly devised). But Newton rather claims that Warren, not Frankfurter, had “framed the debate in such a way as to nudge along the very Restrained Frankfurter.”

I’d like for the right-wingers out there to see how heavily those opposed to Whites depend upon Whites foolishly falling into the Jewish canard of arguing against the positions of their best interests - e.g., taking the equality/inequality issue to cunningly maneuver Whites into tactless arguments on behalf of inequality and superiority (as opposed to qualitative difference).

It is qualitative difference of patterns that are important.

Note how Jewish interests bury their position as something taken for granted: Warren “wanted unanimity” because a divided court would send a message that would have given quarter to those who would resist integration. A unanimous court on behalf of integration is a singular accomplishment that can be attributed to Warren, expressing his wish to combine legal result with “moral imperative”, and while that did not effect integration as quickly as Warren would have liked, it had the effect of backing early “civil rights” activists with conviction that Warren’s court was on their side….what a nerdy, “modest gain the ‘dumb Swede” had really achieved with his imprudence, how much resistance was met unnecessarily for lack of Frankfuter’s Jewish “restraint” in this battle (against White sovereignty) which still, ‘regrettably’, has so far to go.”

While this obscene decision, with all that it willfully ignores, was “unsatisfactory” accomplished and met with “terrible resistance”, it did move things “modestly forward.” Hence, a severely anti-White advance is casually presented as a moderate gain; having met with resistance, shocking resistance, it needs still to go so much further – a presentation by the Jewish thinker, James Newton, L.A. Times.

You see, Frankfurter, “the voice of reason”, became disenchanted with Warren.

The most interesting thing is how the Jews got Whites to react to distinguish themselves as the most pure, most determined liberals. Having maneuvered the Whites as such, the Jews represented themselves as “the moderate position, which has nevertheless been met with a myriad of unreasonable obstructions and needs to go so much further.”

They proceed as if their Jewish angle is taken for granted as the normal, reasonable position.

While Warren was not so “unrestrained” as to water down the Brown decision and increase possibilities for its resistance by spreading its application against other areas of discrimination, it nevertheless became precedent for all subsequent discrimination decisions in American courts (such as matters of immigration).

“The principle of integration as a value of American society was not there pre-Warren.”

Earl Warren is the so-called “activist” centrist according to this Jewish narrative whereas Felix Frankfurter was the hand of “restraint.”

Profiles next up:

Quinton Tarantino

Nicholas Katzenbach

Felix Fankfurter

President Lyndon.B.Johnson

Rahm Emanuel

Tags: Activism, Anti-racism, Law, Political analysis, Political Philosophy

Comments:

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:32 | #

Earl Warren - race traitor POS! May he rot in Detroit (Hell)!

Brown v Board of Education was the watershed event in American history that marked the begining of the decline of White America. The well being of nearly all Whites went in a downward trajectory from that point on.

Speaking of “dumb Swedes”, this go-gooder shit-flinging prick ranks at the bottom: Gunner Myrdal.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:34 | #

Fuck Earl Warren, that POS! May he rot in Detroit (Hell)!

Speaking of “dumb Swedes”, this go-gooder shit-flinging prick ranks at the bottom: Gunner Myrdal.

Posted by Hymie in Afula on Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:15 | #

Excellent job in identifying the tail-wags-the-dog problem.

Now please explain to us, which end of that syndrome, has congenital mind dysplasia?

Do we imagine that cutting the tail away will cure the mind’s problem?

Or will the dog merely begin to now get moved around by the newly most-energetic-&-clever body organ?

And who is that ?

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:03 | #

There is a sense in which Jews can be genuinely frustrated with Whites for not being more ethnocentric, for not just forming a religion of themselves as the Jews have done.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:31 | #

Supreme Court Justice Breyer states that Arthur Schesinger coined the term “activist” judge to distinguish some Justices on the Warren Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer
Breyer was born in San Francisco, the son of Anne A. (née Roberts) and Irving Gerald Breyer, and raised in a middle-class Jewish family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_M._Schlesinger,_Jr.
His paternal grandfather was a Prussian Jew

Posted by Gordian Knot of "Civil Rights" on Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:07 | #

Keith Alexander details Jewish influence behind the duplicitous “civil rights movement” http://lnrlive.com/tpc/tpc20150328a.mp3

“Thurgood Marshal is wrongly given credit as a mastermind, while the true mastermind was a Jewish attorney named Jack Greenberg.”

The “Civil Rights” movement is the never-ending go-to cause in Jewish media because it is the best Jewish trick for Jewish media to harp-on (as if “civil rights” is fresh news!) to Americans as it is affixed to the vulnerability of The US Constitution’s most fundamental terms of “civil individual rights.”

Thus, it is near impossible for “good Americans”, whether they are “conservative” or “liberal” to criticize “civil rights” as it is deeply enmeshed in America’s most hallowed terms, something “all Americans have common interest in”, even though, as these terms have been construed by Jewish interests, they are actually not about civil individual rights, but the advancement of theirs and black group rights over European peoples.

Jewish intelligence, organizational skills, money, influence in law, courts and media, made this (the civil rights movement), among many language games, overwhelming and impossible for White sovereignty to exist.

Their control points:

Media, Academia, Money, Business, Religion, Law&Courts;, Politics.

Posted by Rothstein: remedy to black riots - integration w W on Sat, 16 May 2015 09:42 | #

Rothstein: remedy to black riots - integration w Whites

From The Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at UC Berkeley

Richard Rothstein writes that recent unrest in Baltimore is the legacy of a century of federal, state and local policies designed to “quarantine Baltimore’s black population in isolated slums.”

Fifty years after the repeal of Jim Crow, many African-Americans still live in segregated ghettos in the country’s metropolitan areas. Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, has spent years studying the history of residential segregation in America.

“We have a myth today that the ghettos in metropolitan areas around the country are what the Supreme Court calls ‘de-facto’ — just the accident of the fact that people have not enough income to move into middle class neighborhoods or because real estate agents steered black and white families to different neighborhoods or because there was white flight,” Rothstein tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross.

Says that George Romney, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development forced policies of integration…

Those block bustng policies have been thwarted ever since he was removed from that position by Nixon.

Rothestein elaborates on various strategies used to allow Whites to discriminate against blacks… and which, according to him, now need to be overcome by reinforcing integration of blacks with Whites - “in order to put an end to black rioting, we need to put an end to White freedom of association.”

This community block busting which E. Michael Jones chronicles, happened to Newark, New Jersey as well - noted by M. Immmerso in Newark’s vanished first ward, a little Italy forced to yield to black housing projects, now also destroyed:

Columbus Projects, Newark, New Jersey

Rothstein argues that a large problem is that our language has been too indirect, e.g., we are afraid of the word “ghetto” because it might insult blacks and we need to be more candid in order to solve racial problems. Alright then, you want to deny White freedom of and from association and you want my daughter to have children with Negroes because you are a Jew. How about that for candor?

Posted by Brown vs. Board worse than nuclear bombs on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 04:18 | #

America would have been better-off getting hit by nuclear bombs than sustaining the Brown decision:

http://lnrlive.com/tpc/tpc20150530b.mp3

Posted by Journey from Brown to White on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 14:54 | #

Excerpt from “My Journey to Race Realism”: The Burden of Brown[/url]
June 5, 2015 — Ray Wolters

The following is the first of two excerpts from an article, “My journey to race realism,” to appear in the Summer issue of The Occidental Quarterly. Prof. Ray Wolters is Thomas Muncy Keith Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Delaware.

In the 1960s and 1970s I forged through the academic ranks. My dissertation received favorable notice when it was published in 1970, and another book of 1975 received even better reviews. At the age of 36, I was promoted to the rank of full professor at the University of Delaware, and I began to think about research for yet another book. At that time, civil rights lawyers had brought a lawsuit seeking metropolitan busing for racial balance throughout the northern portion of New Castle County, Delaware. From reading the local newspaper, I learned that the largest city in this region, Wilmington, had been one of the first five jurisdictions that the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954), had ordered to desegregate its public schools. Wilmington complied immediately, but desegregation led to inter-racial scuffles and a decline in cultural and academic standards. This touched off White flight, and enrollment in Wilmington’s public schools tipped from 73% White to 90% Black. I then learned that much the same had happened in three of the four other “Brown districts” — in Prince Edward County, Virginia, in Summerton, South Carolina, and in Washington D.C. Only in Topeka, Kansas, where Blacks made up only 8% of the students, had the majority of Whites continued to patronize the public schools. And desegregation had been problematic even in Topeka.[1]

In my best-known book, The Burden of Brown (1984), I told the story of how public education had fared in these five districts where desegregation began. In the introduction and conclusion, and in a few statements that were interspersed in the text, I maintained that the misbehavior of Black students had created serious problems and that federal judges had made matters worse by redefining desegregation to mean something quite different from the original understanding. When the implementation order for Brown was handed down in 1955, the Supreme Court defined “desegregation” as assigning students to public schools on “a racially non-discriminatory basis.” Similarly, in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress defined what “desegregation” meant and what it did not mean: “‘Desegregation’ means the assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or national origin, but ‘desegregation’ shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.”[2]

Beginning in the mid-1960s, however, and continuing for about 25 years, federal judges required assignment by race to ensure that the mix of races at individual schools would be approximately the same as the proportions that existed in a larger region or state. The constitutional mandate was changed from prohibiting racial discrimination in order to separate the races to requiring racial discrimination in order to mix them. “‘Desegregation” was re-defined to mean something quite different from what the 1954 Brown opinion had required; something that the 1964 Civil Rights Act had specifically said desegregation did not mean.

By the 1980s liberals were dominant in academia and in the national culture (although not in American politics at that time), and academic liberals had coalesced in support of the idea that racial justice required that students should be assigned….

See full excerpt at TOO: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/06/excerpt-from-my-journey-to-race-realism-the-burden-of-brown/

An advisable comment from

Bill K
June 5, 2015 -

And God have mercy on those 36,000 white kids left behind. I was one of them. It was a nightmare from Hell.

Posted by Scalia death leaves vacancy for another liberal on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:35 | #

Elected for life, 9 of the most powerful people in the world: The U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

There are already 3 Jews, a black and a Puerto Rican on the Court

The present court’s most conservative member, Antonin Scalia (front row, second from left) has died, leaving Obama an opportunity to nominate another liberal to the court.

Posted by next President - big impact on Supreme Court on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:51 | #

(((Brandeis))), the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice; (((Felix Frankfurter))) was the third.

Supreme Court until Scalia (bottom row, second from the left) died and left one vacancy. Note there are three of (((them))) on this court and no W.A.S.P.s.

Scalia’s passing has left one Supreme Court vacancy of the 9 seats. At least two other, but perhaps three more Justices, are likely to change during the next Presidential term.

That gives the next President a great deal of influence to determine the direction of 9 of the most powerful people in the world - it can swing the court to a more thoroughly liberal direction not known since the Warren court; or it can take a more “conservative tone” - although really, The Constitution binds the court to liberalism in the form of civil individual rights as opposed to group rights.

Nevertheless, (((the media))) and neo-liberals can frame the discourse of Supreme Court Justice selection as representing an important choice between liberalism and “conservatism.” Nevertheless, it is true that..

The President nominates Supreme Court candidates - when confirmed, they occupy one of the most powerful positions in the world.

At NPR, (((Jeffrey Rosen))) discusses the (((first Jewish Supreme Court Justice))), (((Brandeis))), and the importance of the coming Presidential election on the make-up of the Supreme Court - as many as 4 of the 9 seats can change in the next Presidential term.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/07/481076322/revisiting-the-tenure-of-supreme-court-justice-louis-brandeis-the-jewish-jeffers

Issues at hand:

It’s impossible to underestimate the importance of this election on the Supreme Court - vote for the candidate whose vision of Constitution most coincides with your own.

There is a potential for a Court with a liberal make-up not seen since the Warren Court.

Issues at hand:

Affirmative action

Voting rights

Voter i.d. laws

The future of free speech

Privacy

Surveillance drones - warrants required or not?

(((Ginsburg’s))) goal is to serve as long as Brandeis did, which would have her stepping down during the next election.

(((Breyer))) is one of them.

So is the Supremely unqualified (((Kagan)))

Posted by The truth teller on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:03 | #

Scene from “The Intruder” depicts with remarkable accuracy how it is that racial integration with blacks was imposed - perhaps because “The Intruder” was written and produced with inside knowledge, viz., by (((them))).

Posted by Supreme Justice Nominee, (((Garland))) on Thu, 09 Jun 2016 07:24 | #

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, (((Merrick Garland))):

Garland’s mother Shirley (née Horwitz) was a director of volunteer services at Chicago’s Council for Jewish Elderly; his father, Cyril Garland, headed Garland Advertising, a small business run out of the family’s home. Born to a Jewish family, Garland was raised in Conservative Judaism. His grandparents left the Pale of Settlement in the early 20th century, fleeing antisemitism and seeking a better life for their children in the United States.

Posted by Brown & Greenberg vs Board of Education on Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:15 | #

VNN , 27 Mar 2018:

“Linda Brown, the negro Woman in Landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Case, Dies”

(Above: Jack Greenberg, the Jewish lawyer who steered the “Brown” legal case through the courts)

The Brown v. Board of Education case was a Jewish production, from start to finish. Esther Swirk Brown (a Jew, and no relation to Linda Brown) instigated the lawsuit. Another Jew, NAACP attorney Jack Greenberg, fought the case through the courts (and eventually won). Numerous Jewish “experts” (e.g., the Boasian Otto Klineberg) argued in favor of opening the White public schools to blacks. The case should have been called “Jewish activsts v. Board of Education.