Posted by Ryan on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 21:47 | #

“We might ask, how is protecting natives and native worker’s interests “shifting rightward”? The answer is that it is not.”

I understand that the general critique is that we should not align Pro-White positions with mainstream conservatives, which the majority of people link to being ‘right wing’. Conservatives being linked to apathy for those in difficulty, advocating free market economics etc.

While it is beneficial to change the terminology we use on economic issues I think in the above case if he said Trump was “shifting leftward” it would of made not made sense.

Glad Majority Rights is back up and running again.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 09 Nov 2015 11:57 | #

I may have to revise this comment, but if I do not throw it up now its relevance may be too late.

Hence, I will put up this response to Ryan:

I understand that the general critique is that we should not align Pro-White positions with mainstream conservatives, which the majority of people link to being ‘right wing’. Conservatives being linked to apathy for those in difficulty, advocating free market economics etc.

While it is beneficial to change the terminology we use on economic issues I think in the above case if he said Trump was “shifting leftward” it would of made not made sense.

Hi Ryan, I want to address your comment gingerly, as I appreciate your being well disposed to MR, but that is all the more reason to have you understand the reasoning behind this position and what I try to put forward as a platform for MR.

What I am calling a “White left” derives from a combination of looking at the common denominator of ordinary language (how people have used the term, the left), experience and logical inference.

To begin, the interests of the broad social group contra exploits and betrayal of elite traitors or rank and file traitors (“scabs”) is the broadest common denominator in ordinary use.

Particularly when you are talking a group unit of analysis, as we are when defending our race, “the left” then is the correct perspective, as it maintains a vigil on our group interests in defense against those apt and most capable of betraying us and those who are not in our group.

The Right can do none of these things without resorting to strange contortions and contradictions. That is because, as one finds, first through ordinary language and then by experience and inference, that those who cling steadfast to the right moniker want to warrant their arguments absolutely, with objective purity, and to not have to warrant their arguments in terms of their relative social interests, let alone to have to argue on behalf of that which they wish to deem unassailable (whether they are disingenuous or naive in their motivation).

I have observed that Jews do not want us to identify as “leftists” because they want us to be anti-social, to scare and alienate people who are in developmental stages in group evolutionary, ecological and life span pattern - to make our group defense unaccounted for, conflicted and ultimately, ineffective.

Since it is possible for Whites to interbreed with other races, race is relative enough so that if you care about it, it will also require argumentative defense - social persuasion - one cannot only rely on objective facts, particularly if you are going to defend members and features that are in developmental stages against opportunistic exploitation of those who would disingenuously argue on the basis of “objective grounds” where it favors non-Whites, especially where some argue vehemently that race mixing should happen.

Thus, when defending our race, we are best equipped by the social perspective not only against the would be treachery of our elites and those who would be disenfranchized, but also against exploits that make their way against our broad social group by dint of some abstract ideology applied obliviously against us.

The social group’s interests is a common denominator of what is behind the term left when it is used.

When taught to Whites, Left and Right has mostly been taught as an economic category, a class division, but one sees that national and racial group interests are soon inferred:

Concern for workers interests, wages, unions, protection of worker and state assets, boundaries and borders - group social issues, that they neither be betrayed by the non-unionized interests of elites or by scabs, certainly would be considerations of the left.

While racial group advocacy is readily inferred with this, for Whites it has been applied only against us (by and because of YKW and those complicit), as if we are all “the elite right wingers”, a privileged economic elite; or, abstractly, not good capitalist or Darwinist competitors, anti-racist liberals, Christians, or some other variant of universal moralist, etc.

While just about every other group, including racial groups, are allowed advocacy and to scab the White class, the White class is compelled to hyperbolic liberalism by this Red Left - which the right, including the Alt Right, has taken to calling THE left ... oblivious to the fact that it does not represent a White Left - i.e., a socially grounded advocacy of our group(s). Why is there no White left? I have answered this in several places.

But to make a long story short, Jews, knowing that this is the strongest position, morally and otherwise, have taken it and exaggerated it, distorted and misrepresented it to Whites so as to turn them off to it; while also turning off those less sympathetic to White advocacy, as they also identify White advocacy with The Right, its inhumaneness, its snobbish elitism and exploitation, its impervious unaccountability, etc. All the while Whites, overwhelmed by the culture of critique take the bait, seeking relief in quest for unassailable objective warrants in the Right.

This successfully turns people off as they become socially gauche.

WN take the bait and argue snobbishly and with needless provocation “against equality” when they should be arguing for our patterns of difference.

Nevertheless, associations of what “the left” is doing happen tellingly through ordinary language, despite Jewish journalese attempts to make what is an inherently exclusivistic and social concern - a union of a particular social group - into a universalistic and hyper-liberal concern - that which we are calling the Red Left; what most people have been compelled by Jewish journalese to call “THE left”; but which they frequently wind up calling “liberalism” in the same breath because they cannot help themselves as “liberalism” is more accurately descriptive in terms of what they are complaining about.

Where group social concerns overlap an exclusive union based on EGI, say, of people of European descent, or The English in particular, then it would be a White Left, or a subspecies of the genus, White Left.

Of course that is what Jews do not want us to have; hence the confusion.

That is not to say that everyone would have to be in a union other than a union, say, of European peoples, or The English, in order to be of the White Left.

Nevertheless, it is important that Majority Rights distinguish itself from The Right, including the “Alternative Right”, for a myriad of reasons.

Where its “big tent” is not disingenuous, it is naive, misguided and subject inevitably to serious contradictions. You might begin by looking at its cast of characters, from “TradYouth” to Richard Spencer proclaiming that having a glass of bourbon every 9:30 P.M., relishing “the little things”, while pondering his veranda should define our “new left”, to his inclusion in his big tent of the kindly but Jewish and Jewish motivated Paul Gottfried, who wants “The Left” to be the enemy (for the said Jewish reasons) to Roosh, the middle eastern dirt-bag, who doesn’t care about our race, wants to notch as many White women as possible and to legalize their rape.

The Alternative Right big tent attempts to straddle contradictory elements:

- People who place Christianity above racial interests

- Nazi apologists, including usually those who think the Nazis could scarcely do anything wrong; while their opponents “scarcely had any grounds.”

In truth, the Nazis were imperialist elitists (not ethno-nationalist separatists) who tended to be dehumanizing in applying biologically deterministic cause and effect to the realm of praxis - human social interaction.

- Jews (yes, Jews and Nazis both, we are talking the right now, their “objectivism” does tend to have the reflexive effect of hyper-relativism).

- People who place concern for “objectivity” above racial interests. This is one of the most common underpinnings of popular philosophy, particularly liberalism. But it is also the underpinning of scientism, as academic scientists often clumsily try stay socially relevant by proffering notions of necessity that hold up in more regular fashion in the hard sciences but are mis-or over-applied by them to the social world.

- that includes trying to relegate destructive traditions and destructive modernist practices both, as being beyond the social management of White post modernity, and into narrow, “naturally” deterministic grounds. This entails their dumb, foolish and simplistic ideas of what a White man is and does, what a White woman is and does.

- Some of the pagan religions and ideology - e.g., “might is right” - that they try to dredge up are no less socially foolish.

- Their susceptibility to speculative, if not bizarre, conspiracy theories, probably stems from a similar anxiety and quest for ultimate, unassailable truth.

- radical individualism: biological determinism taken to an impervious extreme must blind itself to its ultimate social source; thus being another pet project of the right in consideration of which our social concerns need and should not take second place.

- their penchant for elitism, which is bound to turn off the broad social group, leave them susceptible to hubris, to compel them to blind themselves, the disingenuous and others, the naive, with abstract a-social or anti-social nonsense. This ultimately leaves us vulnerable to other groups functioning more cooperatively and respectfully of one another group members. It leaves us vulnerable to betrayal as their accountability is weak on objectivist grounds and the motives for the betrayed rank and file to defect is increased as well.

All these and more, are reasons to be a White Left and not in the big tent of the “Alternative Right”, let alone the traditional right.

Finally, we have and offer all the right (and alt right) has in a positive sense and infinitely more; minus their humongous drawbacks.
...

While Trump would be gesturing in the direction of an American Left, he would not constitute a White leftist.

 

Posted by Ryan on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:00 | #

@DanielS

Re-reading my comment I should of ended it a long the lines of “it would of not made sense to his typical readership”. I understand mass immigration is down to post-1945 liberallism rather than having it’s roots in normal left wing politics. While most Pro-White people recognise the disengious nature of the political specturm it is though a simple way of designating your own position as well as others. I do acknowledge the comment above does make me appear to be changing my position.

In the early 20th century Australian trade unions were very Pro-White. Local trade union activity in the pre-WW2 British Coal industry took place against the negative impact of domestic and foreign migration on the economic prospects for local men. Supposelly even the French Communist party were not neccessarily fully supportive of mass immigration until the 1980’s.

I can’t respond to everything so I will respond to the general theme. I recognise there is mileage in attempting to position ourselves as the continuation of the aims of the pre-WW2 left, something for example which the British National Party has to a degree positioned itself as. However the historical aims of the left were predominantly economics and achieved this through uniting with different groups. We in the West are in a situation whereby are aim is racial preservation rather than economic advancement and we desire seperation from specific groups rather than unity. As such unless the perception of the old left can be substanitally altered then I don’t think that where a ‘White Left’ positions would not neccessarily be a linear continuation of the pre-ww2 left.

In terms of adopting terminology which to preach to the public I would say the ‘Patriotic Left’ would be more suited. If there is a ‘White Left’ there must then be a ‘White Right’ which linguistically does not sound right. Then again if ‘White Left’ is meant to be a in-term and people are happy to adopt it then there is no issue. Patriot of course has civil undertones but in practise is basically a codeword for Pro-White.

Even so I understand the point about not embracing the terms the enemy applies to us as gospel. For example I see it as stupid when people self identify as ‘far-right’ as being ‘far’ on the political spectrum is subjective and is an implicit admission that you hold ‘controversial’ viewpoints when in modern day politics the extremists are the ‘centerists’.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:15 | #

Hi Ryan, thanks for your thoughtful response.

One of the reasons to designate a White Left is to take advantage of its unclaimed, un-defined moniker, seizing the opportunity to define it for ourselves and to distinguish us from a White Right - indeed, to disassociate us from their many errors.

It is not sheerly negative, however. There are many positive reasons that I have gone into before.

And there are a few drawbacks - but only a few.

Perhaps the largest obstacle is the long-standing definitions and associations of “the left” promulgated by the media and academia.

This is largely overcome by adding the prefix *“White”, i.e., The White Left, to provoke the occasion for the question of what that is (?) and to provide and assert our answer - that it is a union of the social classification of the genus of genetic Europeans, a union of unions coordinating its discreet subspecies and ways; which is well suited to cooperate with the Asian genus and species.

The White Left, The White Class: These two terms seem most comprehensive and to sort things out most thoroughly. There are some problems, of course, in negative associations with the word “White”, but still the term cannot be avoided in America, for example, as it is the official term for its European citizens.

Because it does not contain the word Nationalist, the term White Left may be mistaken by some as not having a vital respect for European national borders, concern for its native boundaries, when in fact the maintenance of the distinct national groups is a concomitant feature of its platform.

In England, calling yourself “the White Left” could reasonably be seen as the disingenuous ploy of slobs who wish to blend away native English with other Europeans. Not so, and it should never be understood as such.

Hence the need in some contexts for the clarifying term,

Native Left Nationalism(s).

And as a further safeguard in clarification against those who would turn all Europeans into an interchangeable proposition, the particular nation would be invoked - e.g.,

Native English Left Nationalism.

The White Left would be a genus recognizing the Native English Left as an inviolable species.

The prefix “White” is problematic but so are all potential prefixes.

Again, “European” is fine, could be best, but is confusing in America and elsewhere among European diaspora for obvious reasons. It is complicated to identify as “European” in America. Having said that, it is still probably the best descriptive term, ultimately.

But there are other problems with the prefix “European”. “European Left” would not be apprehended as a neo-logism, but would probably invoke images of obnoxious Red Leftism, not designating ethnic genetic interests at all as a White Left would.

Nevertheless, “European” should correspond with genetic European peoples and not be a merely political and propositional designation; and we will work on that.

What I am getting at, is that I do not insist on the term White Left every time. On the contrary, different terms will be better in different circumstances. It is not a problem so long as the underlying meaning is the same.

Another difficulty for the term White Left is that it also hazards the definition of snobs, for example those who would seek to exclude Southern Europeans from the category.

It also hazards to be misunderstood as if the same ethno-nationalist rules cannot apply to other races, when of course it can. But Asians probably would not want to call themselves “White” Left nationalists and do not have the need to forefront the fact that they are speaking of a racial union when they speak of their nationalisms, as it is more taken for granted.

“Left Nationalist” thus, or

“Ethno-Nationalist” can mean the same thing, depending upon who is saying it.

Third Positionism and Syndicalism have much in common as well..

Even fascism and national socialism have much in common where they are not misunderstood for their hijacked form - imperialist, supremacist, scientistic, anti-social affectation.

What you mean by “Patriot Left” can also designate the same politics. It has something of an image problem as once noted by Stan Hess - the word “patriot” connotes men with powdered wigs and so forth; perhaps not one’s cup of tea but we know what you mean.

All of these terms can be synonymous.

I find “The White Left” sorts things out the best - cross contextually, it encompasses the best of all of these terms, as a a genus and species, a class of classes, a union of unions. It merely requires a little explanation to clarify what is properly meant by it.

I.e., it neither implies blending with nor disregarding particular native European nationalisms.

The White Class, which is also synonymous with The White Left, is a racial classification - The Genus European, the Species of the particular nations and their diaspora.

That is one of the major differences of The White Left, in which “class” is synonymous with race and subraces whereas the Red Left draws class as a social classification of groups in conflict primarily as economic groups; and later, with PC, as “victim groups” against White men.

I have been told that I will be accused of being disingenuous, “wallpapering” over real economic class differences, but I don’t think this accusation will hold up.

If everyone is a member of the class then there is the means and motive of accountability as opposed to what the charge of “wallpapering” would fundamentally be accusing me of - wallpapering over accountability for important differences.

Note that this inclusion of the elite within the class encourages their excellence and participation as they are not excluded, demonized and penalized for their excellence but are seen as being on the same team. Similarly, those who do not start out with a silver spoon in their mouth are not penalized for the luck of their draw from the start, but can see their skills being appreciated as team players and rewarded with advanced position where merited.

However, one of the greatest features of the moniker, “White Left”, is that as a habit stance, it maintains an ongoing perspective, including a vigil on the elite, such that they do not betray the class; and an ongoing vigil and perspective on the concerns of the rank and file, so that they do not betray the class.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:06 | #

Adding:

Note that this inclusion of the elite within the class encourages their excellence and participation as they are not excluded, demonized and penalized for their excellence but are seen as being on the same team. Similarly, those who do not start out with a silver spoon in their mouth are not penalized for the luck of their draw from the start, but can see their skills being appreciated as team players and rewarded with advanced position where merited.

Posted by Trump seeks lower wages on Thu, 19 Nov 2015 20:12 | #

Trump insists that wages are too high. That is a rightward turn.

Posted by Randall Burns discusses H1B Visas and more on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 16:37 | #

Randall Burns discusses H1B Visas specifically along with broader views on economic, migratory and environmental management.

Posted by H1-B & capitalist scamming on Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:54 | #

TNO, H1-B Visa Scam Highlighted in Fla. 6 March 2016:

The endorsement of Donald Trump by two former Walt Disney World employees, who say they lost their jobs and were forced to train their H1-B visa foreign replacements, has brought into sharp focus how this capitalist establishment scam works.

The two former employees—Dena Moore and Leo Perrero—appeared at a weekend Trump rally in Orlando, where they endorsed Trump and said that they had been betrayed by Trump rival and Florida senator Marco Rubio.

Posted by Actualization undermine: STEM myopia on Tue, 29 Mar 2016 23:02 | #

Quartz, “Rampant wealth inequality in Silicon Valley could make San Francisco a ghost town”, 17 March 2016:

I’ve been saying for some time now that a healthy social system, society if you will, must respect the ordinary and the routine as well as the extraordinary - at least sufficient to nurture, support and balance the peaks of “self actualization.”

This article presents a good example of how over-valuation and myopic focus on “actualization” - and in this case in particular, the capacity of STEM people - snobbishly removes people from their own people, who function in ordinary parts of the system, in routine but necessary capacities; in anti-social separation they are then put at risk to outsiders; and where the routine and systemic being is not respected, ultimately, this destabilizes and undermines the support that their actualization requires.

In the late 1990s, I was making $12.50 an hour and living in a two-bedroom apartment. Life was pretty good. I could travel occasionally, buy dinner and drinks, and go shopping. I was far from wealthy, but I could afford to live on my salary in part because my rent was just shy of $500 a month.

Those days are long gone. The median cost of rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco is $3,590, according to a March 2016 report from rental site Zumper. A two-bedroom will put you out $4,870 a month. (So much for getting a roommate to save on expenses.) Meanwhile, minimum wage in the city of San Francisco is $12.25 an hour.

Silicon Valley has played a big role in the Bay Area’s skyrocketing cost of living, while those left out of the tech boom have suffered the consequences. The problem is particularly pronounced for low-earning workers, including the customer service representatives, maintenance workers, drivers and other support staff who have helped make the industry’s explosive growth possible. But even if Silicon Valley’s new money aristocracy doesn’t care about living wages right now, it will have to confront the problem eventually—or else wind up a ghost town.

Even if Silicon Valley’s new money aristocracy doesn’t care about living wages right now, it will have to confront the problem eventually. For years, jobs in technology have been heralded as the brave new frontier for the American economy. There’s even a myth that a STEM focus in schools will guarantee jobs and living wages for everyone. While it’s true that a software engineer at Google can make a six-figure salary, tech companies also need support staff to sell their products and to fix them, to run their offices and to sweep their floors. These workers won’t be around for long if they can’t make rent.

Such was the dilemma laid out by former Yelp employee Talia Jane in her now infamous open letter detailing the low wages and high cost of living so endemic to the Bay Area. Many insisted that it was Jane’s work ethic (or lack thereof) that was the problem. But while it is true that some millennial workers have entitlement issues in the workplace, it seems clear that Jane and her fellow customer support workers at Yelp’s Eat24 service are not being paid a living wage.

There’s a myth that a STEM focus in schools will guarantee jobs and living wages for everyone.  But Yelp is not alone in underpaying its support staff. Customer service associates for Uber make approximately $15 an hour, according to Glassdoor.com. Apple’s customer service specialists in its San Francisco store also make around $15 an hour. At Minted, an online design marketplace, customer service representatives earn an average of $15 an hour. Customer service salaries at Amazon hover between $10 and $13 an hour, although Amazon’s customer service centers are located in places including Grand Forks, North Dakota and Kennewick, Washington–places with much lower rents than San Francisco.

Wage stagnation is a problem everywhere. And unions, which typically fight for cost of living increases, are continuously under attack in the tech sector. Prominent anti-union voices in tech include BuzzFeed founder and CEO Jonah Peretti, who has said that while he supports unions in principle, “I don’t think that it’s the right idea for us,” and Paul Graham, cofounder of startup incubator Y Combinator, who tweeted in November 2015 that “industries afflicted by unions are sclerotic and so have left lots undone.” Uber, Amazon, and Apple, among other companies, have also engaged in efforts to squash attempts at unionization, often by claiming that their workers don’t need unions at all. This pushback is dangerous for the laborers who make the tech sector’s profits possible.

Unions, which typically fight for cost of living increases, are continuously under attack in the tech sector. Wal-Mart has long been criticized as a kind of evil empire, an expert at finding ways to pay employees less and union-busting where ever possible. But how are supposed to treat tech companies that do the same thing? Anti-union sentiment in Silicon Valley startups might come from a different political place than anti-union sentiment in Missouri, Wisconsin, or other, less liberal states, but the impact on workers is the same. People like Talia Jane and the drivers suing Amazon for withholding wages are all symptoms of a larger disease.

There are alternatives to this scenario. As Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan recently suggested, class-conscious tech workers could unionize, pushing a more socially aware agenda that prioritizes spreading the wealth to support staff and local communities. Or companies could voluntarily scale the pay for support staff to be commensurate with the cost of living in their areas. Gravity Payments chief executive Dan Price took this plunge in 2015, raising his company’s minimum salary to $70,000 a year. It is too soon to know how that experiment will turn out, and some reports have suggested that his motivations may not have been entirely altruistic. But so far, Gravity Payments is still open, still employing approximately 120 people, and still making a profit. The technology industry doesn’t have to sit back and passively contribute to the wealth gap.

If valuing the labor of support workers doesn’t inspire Silicon Valley to address stagnant wages, perhaps pure selfishness will. As venture capitalists and startup CEOs drive up housing prices in tech hubs, it’s become increasingly difficult for the people who make those cities functional to afford to live in them. Living nearby and commuting in is increasingly less viable. Just take a look at the rising cost of living in the once-affordable Oakland.

Should this trend continue, a six-figure salary won’t mean much. Highly paid tech workers will be stuck living in cities with no services available, because the combined costs of transportation and rent will drive out the people who provide those services.

A city populated exclusively by millionaires is one that’s nonfunctional. If we want to avoid that future, it’s time to admit that America’s wealth gap problem is one that coding boot camps and STEM programs alone won’t fix. The tech economy would crumble without service workers. We need to value their labor accordingly.

Posted by Sampan on Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:32 | #

Blacks living in USA have 80-85 IQ and so far they have produced only 1 Economist Nobel laureate and 2/3 literature laureates and I’m not counting worthless peace prize.

Bengali Brahmins living in USA have 5000 population and from that we have 1200+ patents which is best in the world(i.e better than Ashkenazi Jew or Japanese).In USA we have also won 2 Pulitzer prizes,14 Grammy awards,1 Nobel laureate signature award winner from only 5000 population.

Whites or Ashkenazi Jew living in USA are inventive,but not as inventive as Bengali Brahmins.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:03 | #

Bengali Brahmins are not an ethnic group.  They are the smart fraction of the Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi ethnic group.  Their intellectual achievements belong to the whole group, which numbers 1.6 billion - rather more, of course, when one counts the Subcon diaspora.

How do you feel about that now, hey?

Posted by Stanford: Saying Jews Control Media Isn't anti-Sem on Fri, 08 Apr 2016 22:39 | #

Haaretz, “Saying Jews Control Media Is Not anti-Semitism, Stanford Student Leader Claims”, 7 April 2016:

Student later apologized after making comments during a discussion on language in a proposed resolution to combat anti-Semitism on campus.

A member of Stanford University’s Student Senate argued that it is “not anti-Semitism” to claim Jews control “the media, economy, government and other social institutions.”

Gabriel Knight, a junior, made the remark at a Student Senate meeting Tuesday addressing a proposed resolution on anti-Semitism, according to the Stanford Daily, the main campus newspaper. Knight also said, “Questioning these potential power dynamics, I think, is not anti-Semitism. I think it’s a very valid discussion.”

He apologized later in the meeting after Jewish community leaders and a Jewish student accused him of anti-Semitism.

“I will apologize for when I supposed that [the clause] wasn’t anti-Semitic,” said Knight. “It wasn’t right for me to say that Jewish people can’t be offended by that. What I meant to say is that it’s still making a political statement, which is my problem with the clause — it’s an important conversation we should be having.”

Posted by Stanford student has to drop question of J-Power on Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:13 | #

JTA, “Stanford student senator who defended debate of Jewish ‘power’ will not run for reelection” 11 April 2016:

(JTA) — A member of Stanford University’s student senate who argued it is “not anti-Semitism” to claim Jews control “the media, economy, government and other social institutions” said he will not run for reelection.

In a statement published April 8 in the student newspaper the Stanford Daily, junior Gabriel Knight said that “my continued presence in the Senate race has become a distraction from the larger ASSU elections and has made it difficult for students to meaningfully discuss campus issues.”

Knight said in the statement of his remarks at the April 5 meeting, which was debating a proposed resolution on anti-Semitism: “I never intended to be hurtful and am saddened by and apologize for the fact that I was. Nevertheless, I hope that this week’s events and my decision to end my campaign do not encourage or substantiate threats to free discussion.”

His remarks came during a debate over language in the proposed resolution, which offers guidelines for defining anti-Semitism and calls on the student governmental body to oppose anti-Semitic activities and fund anti-discrimination education.

Knight also said, “Questioning these potential power dynamics, I think, is not anti-Semitism. I think it’s a very valid discussion.”

He apologized later in the meeting after Jewish community leaders and a Jewish student accused him of anti-Semitism.

“I will apologize for when I supposed that [the clause] wasn’t anti-Semitic,” Knight said. “It wasn’t right for me to say that Jewish people can’t be offended by that. What I meant to say is that it’s still making a political statement, which is my problem with the clause — it’s an important conversation we should be having.”

Posted by Hillary, Goldman, Gupta, H1B on Sat, 16 Jul 2016 06:35 | #

       
        Rajat Gupta

Washington Free Beacon, “Outsourcing Clinton Allies Accused of Abusing Visa System,” 15 June 2015:

DOL investigates two foundation donors for replacing Americans with cheap foreign labor

BY: Bill McMorris

The Department of Labor is investigating two outsourcing giants with ties to the Clinton Foundation for illegally supplanting American workers with cheap foreign labor.

The Department of Labor announced on Thursday it was investigating Tata Consultancy Services and Infosys for allegedly forcing American IT workers to train foreign workers before being laid off. Some of those employees allege that their employers replaced them with the immigrants who were in the country on temporary visas.

The Labor Department is investigating whether or not the companies abused the H-1B program, which grants temporary visas to fill highly-skilled jobs that employers claim are not adequately filled by American workers. The law requires that companies take “good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers” and “has not displaced a U.S. worker at the time of filing an H-1B visa petition,” according to the department.

The investigation was announced on Thursday by a bipartisan group of senators.

“We’re pleased to hear that the Labor Department is taking a first step to stanch this tide of visa abuse,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said in a joint statement. “A number of U.S. employers, including some large, well-known, publicly-traded corporations, have laid off thousands of American workers and replaced them with H-1B visa holders.”

The two companies have been generous supporters of the Clinton Foundation, contributing between $35,000 and $50,000.

Clinton’s ties extend beyond foundation donations. As a freshman senator from New York, Hillary Clinton praised TCS for setting up operations in upstate Buffalo, N.Y. When confronted by talk show host Lou Dobbs about the costs of outsourcing, she defended TCS for bringing 10 new jobs to New York State.

“They’ve actually brought jobs to Buffalo. Outsourcing does work both ways,” she said. She later told Indian officials, “we are not against all outsourcing.”

TCS and Infosys aren’t the only shady players in the Indian community with close ties to the Clinton family. She received thousands of dollars for her campaign from imprisoned former Goldman Sachs honcho Rajat Gupta. Gupta, a major player in one of the largest insider trading busts in history, hired Chelsea Clinton for a six-figure position upon her college graduation.

The Clinton campaign did not return request for comment.

An Infosys spokesman said the company would cooperate with the Labor Department and abides by U.S. immigration laws.

“Infosys is committed to complying with U.S. immigration laws. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regularly selects a percentage of visa and labor condition applications for extra scrutiny in this industry, and we work closely with the DOL to assist them in this activity in the ordinary course of our business,” he said in an email.
A TCS spokesman also denied any impropriety in its use of H-1B visas.

“TCS maintains rigorous internal controls to ensure it is fully compliant with all regulatory requirements related to US immigration laws, including those related to H-1B visas, and we are fully cooperating with this request for information,” he said.

        Thousands of American IT workers displaced by H1B deal the Clinton’s cut with India.
       
        Indian nepotism facilitated in Silicon Valley.