Majorityrights News > Category: Boundaries and Borders

Occidental Dissent, “President Trump Reverses His Plan To Withdraw From Syria”, 22 Feb 2019:

As I said in December, the Israel Lobby, the Pentagon and the GOP establishment would find some way to pressure Trump into reversing his withdrawal of troops from Syria:

“WASHINGTON — First, President Trump was going to pull all 2,000 American troops out of Syria immediately. Then he was going to slow down the withdrawal. Then he was going to leave troops in neighboring Iraq.

Now, in the latest about-face, Mr. Trump has agreed to leave about 400 troops in Syria — 200 in a multinational force in the northeastern part of the country and another 200 at a small outpost in the southeast, where they will seek to counter Iran’s influence throughout the country.

His decision to commit what one senior administration official described on Friday as a “couple hundred troops” to the multinational force, operating south of the Turkish border, came after European allies refused to send troops if the United States would not.

Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, John R. Bolton, pressed the president to make the decision on Thursday, this official said, amid signs that the Pentagon’s negotiations to put together a stabilization and monitoring force were foundering on European resistance. …”

Such has been the story of the Trump administration:

– Big Ag and the Chamber of Commerce have gotten Trump to support increasing legal immigration
– Republican senators loudly condemned Trump for withdrawing from TPP and renegotiating NAFTA until he essentially replaced NAFTA with TPP
– The tax reform bill passed without closing the carried interest loophole
– The GOP Congress punted on funding the border wall half a dozen times
– Various immigration bills like Kate’s Law have died in the Senate
– Trump was persuaded to sign the 2018 Omnibus and to cave on the shutdown by Republican senators
– The GOP Congress passed heavy sanctions on Russia and Trump yielded to pressure from conservatives to arm Ukraine and expand NATO
– Trump was convinced by Ryan and McConnell to prioritize their agenda of health care, tax reform and welfare reform

At the end of the day, conservatives in Congress have prevailed on nearly every issue, and Trump has walked back his populist promises over and over again.

By Hunter Wallace. Share this.

Los Angeles, which way have you gone, Western man?

Well, Trump certainly did deliver on his promise - to Israel, to undo the Iran Deal.

But with Trump’s failure to deliver on his promise for an effective Mexican border wall, in fact, delivering more amnesty, Ecce Lux and Dennis Dale have an interesting but alarming discussion about the change in America’s demographics, from the transformation of Los Angeles into Tijuana north, to the transformation of a segment of young Whites into irredeemable anti-White, “anti-fa.”

Dennis Dale, Ecce Lux and a guest discuss this collapse of America’s demographic balance and ways of life - the implications: with Ecce Lux having witnessed the transformation to what is now an advanced stage in Los Angeles, he warns that “most Americans don’t realize how F-d they are.”

In truth, I was seeing an advanced stage of demographic horror and destruction in Newark, New Jersey back in the 1960s. It was just as much of a nightmare that White people could “rationalize” their way around it and go into denial about the clear, catastrophic implications. I could not understand how Whites could not see the clear augury of how F-d they were going to be…

Ecce Lux renders intelligent description of the change and his visceral response, but he doesn’t get some basic matters yet. That probably results from his having only come to the struggle recently. We need to talk to him here. I tried with Dennis Dale and am still open to him but maybe you can’t teach an older dog new tricks.

Ecce Lux seems open to the DNA Nations. As soon as I finally have time (should be this week) to finish a summary audio on the philosophy being espoused here (by me, anyway), I will begin working on implementation.

Confirmed: Israel Using DNA Tests to Racially-Screen Would-be Immigrants

TNO 9 Feb 2019:

Israeli rabbinical courts are regularly using DNA tests to test the claims of Jewish racial descent by would-be immigrants in Israel, confirming that Jews are in a fact a biological race, a new report in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper has confirmed.

News of the use of DNA tests has been known as far back as July 2013, when an official statement from the Israeli Prime Minister’s office in Tel Aviv, said that the Jewish government was about to introduce DNA testing to ensure that no non-Jews from Russia enter the country.

       

The new admission in Haaretz is however the first confirmation that the policy is actively being implemented, and is being used to prevent those who cannot prove that they are biologically descended from Jewish mothers, from marrying pure Jews.

According to the new report, in “cases where the Jewishness of individuals seeking to marry is in doubt,” individuals are being asked to “undergo genetic testing” to confirm their Jewishness.

READ MORE...

TruthDig.Org., “The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy”, 7 Feb 2019:

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is getting significant media attention these days, after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview that it should “be a larger part of our conversation” when it comes to funding the “Green New Deal.” According to MMT, the government can spend what it needs without worrying about deficits. MMT expert and Bernie Sanders adviser professor Stephanie Kelton says the government actually creates money when it spends. The real limit on spending is not an artificially imposed debt ceiling but a lack of labor and materials to do the work, leading to generalized price inflation. Only when that real ceiling is hit does the money need to be taxed back, but even then it’s not to fund government spending. Instead, it’s needed to shrink the money supply in an economy that has run out of resources to put the extra money to work.

Predictably, critics have been quick to rebut, calling the trend to endorse MMT “disturbing” and “a joke that’s not funny.” In a Feb. 1 post on the Daily Reckoning, Brian Maher darkly envisioned Bernie Sanders getting elected in 2020 and implementing “Quantitative Easing for the People” based on MMT theories. To debunk the notion that governments can just “print the money” to solve their economic problems, he raised the specter of Venezuela, where “money” is everywhere but bare essentials are out of reach for many, the storefronts are empty, unemployment is at 33 percent and inflation is predicted to hit 1 million percent by the end of the year.

Blogger Arnold Kling also pointed to the Venezuelan hyperinflation. He described MMT as “the doctrine that because the government prints money, it can spend whatever it wants . . . until it can’t.” He said:

To me, the hyperinflation in Venezuela exemplifies what happens when a country reaches the “it can’t” point. The country is not at full employment. But the government can’t seem to spend its way out of difficulty. Somebody should ask these MMT rock stars about the Venezuela example.

I’m not an MMT rock star and won’t try to expound on its subtleties. (I would submit that under existing regulations, the government cannot actually create money when it spends, but that it should be able to. In fact, MMTers have acknowledged that problem; but it’s a subject for another article.) What I want to address here is the hyperinflation issue, and why Venezuelan hyperinflation and “QE for the People” are completely different animals.

What Is Different About Venezuela

Venezuela’s problems are not the result of the government issuing money and using it to hire people to build infrastructure, provide essential services and expand economic development. If it were, unemployment would not be at 33 percent and climbing. Venezuela has a problem the U.S. does not, and will never have: It owes massive debts in a currency it cannot print itself, namely, U.S. dollars. When oil (its principal resource) was booming, Venezuela was able to meet its repayment schedule. But when the price of oil plummeted, the government was reduced to printing Venezuelan bolivars and selling them for U.S. dollars on international currency exchanges. As speculators drove up the price of dollars, more and more printing was required by the government, massively deflating the national currency.

It was the same problem suffered by Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe, the two classic examples of hyperinflation typically raised to silence proponents of government expansion of the money supply before Venezuela suffered the same fate. Professor Michael Hudson, an actual economic rock star who supports MMT principles, has studied the hyperinflation question extensively. He confirms that those disasters were not due to governments issuing money to stimulate the economy. Rather, he writes, “Every hyperinflation in history has been caused by foreign debt service collapsing the exchange rate. The problem almost always has resulted from wartime foreign currency strains, not domestic spending.”

Venezuela and other countries that are carrying massive debts in currencies that are not their own are not sovereign. Governments that are sovereign can and have engaged in issuing their own currencies for infrastructure and development quite successfully. I have discussed a number of contemporary and historical examples in my earlier articles, including in Japan, China, Australia and Canada.

Although Venezuela is not technically at war, it is suffering from foreign currency strains triggered by aggressive attacks by a foreign power. U.S. economic sanctions have been going on for years, causing the country at least $20 billion in losses. About $7 billion of its assets are now being held hostage by the U.S., which has waged an undeclared war against Venezuela ever since George W. Bush’s failed military coup against President Hugo Chávez in 2002. Chávez boldly announced the “Bolivarian Revolution,” a series of economic and social reforms that dramatically reduced poverty and illiteracy as well as improved health and living conditions for millions of Venezuelans. The reforms, which included nationalizing key components of the nation’s economy, made Chávez a hero to millions of people and the enemy of Venezuela’s oligarchs.

Nicolás Maduro was elected president following Chávez’s death in 2013 and vowed to continue the Bolivarian Revolution. Recently, as Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi had done before him, he defiantly announced that Venezuela would not be trading oil in U.S. dollars following sanctions imposed by President Trump.

The notorious Elliott Abrams has now been appointed as special envoy to Venezuela. Considered a war criminal by many for covering up massacres committed by U.S.-backed death squads in Central America, Abrams was among the prominent neocons closely linked to Bush’s failed Venezuelan coup in 2002. National security adviser John Bolton is another key neocon architect advocating regime change in Venezuela. At press conference on Jan. 28, he held a yellow legal pad prominently displaying the words “5,000 troops to Colombia,” a country that shares a border with Venezuela. Clearly, the neocon contingent feels it has unfinished business there.

Bolton does not even pretend that it’s all about restoring “democracy.” He blatantly said on Fox News, “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.” As President Nixon said of U.S. tactics against Salvador Allende’s government in Chile, the point of sanctions and military threats is to squeeze the country economically.

Killing the Public Banking Revolution in Venezuela

It may be about more than oil, which recently hit record lows in the market. The U.S. hardly needs to invade a country to replenish its supplies. As with Libya and Iraq, another motive may be to suppress the banking revolution initiated by Venezuela’s upstart leaders.

The banking crisis of 2009–10 exposed the corruption and systemic weakness of Venezuelan banks. Some banks were engaged in questionable business practices. Others were seriously undercapitalized. Others still were apparently lending top executives large sums of money. At least one financier could not prove where he got the money to buy the banks he owned.

Rather than bailing out the culprits, as was done in the U.S., in 2009 the government nationalized seven Venezuelan banks, accounting for around 12 percent of the nation’s bank deposits. In 2010, more were taken over. Chávez’s government arrested at least 16 bankers and issued more than 40 corruption-related arrest warrants for others who had fled the country. By the end of March 2011, only 37 banks were left, down from 59 at the end of November 2009. State-owned institutions took a larger role, holding 35 percent of assets as of March 2011, while foreign institutions held just 13.2 percent of assets.

READ MORE...

LONDON (AP): Liam Neeson says he’s ashamed to admit he had violent thoughts about killing a black person after learning that someone close to him had been raped.

Neeson says that after being told the attacker was black, he “went up and down areas with a cosh [stick or truncheon]” hoping a black person “would come out of a pub and have a go at me about something, you know? So that I could kill him.”

THE GAME IS OVER. THE PATRIOTS LOST: Though I cannot recommend Matt Parrott for his foolish and unwarranted misdirection away from and against the platform here, he is clever enough to turn a good phrase, as in this article, where the issue isn’t too deep for him. However, for one thing, he needs to understand that the Christards are playing a suckers game in line with propositional nationalism, and being beaten badly for it as well.

Since the time in the late 80’s when I prioritized racial interests over the entertainment of sports and music, when I do observe race mixed sporting events or statistics, I root for the individual performance of White players and against individual black players.

Over at Amren, Paul Kersey entitles an article, “Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl”

Although there is something to be said for the Patriots success while using White players in positions usually associated with black skills, as rather an expression of White selection and identity, betraying negrophila some along with its taken for granteds, the teams are still mercenary, not particularly representing a place or race. Thus, I can’t agree with his conclusion that Whites should feel ok about rooting for mixed race teams as it perpetuates the idiot cuckoldry of White fandom and support of the race mixing agenda through one of its most seductive means - visually exciting sports, adulation of athletic skills beyond merit, way beyond real world value and just reward, while ensconced in the deceptive, soothing pretext of passive objectivity.

Kersey writes:

The white quarterback, Tom Brady, along with white wide receivers Julian Edelman and Chris Hogan, white tight end Rob Gronkowski, and white running backs Rex Burkhead and James Develin, are an anomaly in the “vibrant” NFL. They have a vast overrepresentation of skilled white players who not only excel, but dominate.

[...]

With all this whooping about diversity, an anomaly does not go unremarked: the whiteness of the New England Patriots during their historic run under Tom Brady. For this year’s Super Bowl in Atlanta, all eyes are on Mr. Brady, the 41-year-old quarterback, who will be playing in his unprecedented ninth championship game in 18 seasons (this will be his third consecutive shot at the Lombardi Trophy, and Mr. Brady holds a 5-3 record in the Super Bowl).

With that, he suggests:

Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl

It’s OK to be white.

On Sunday, more than 110 million Americans will huddle around their television sets and watch the 53rd Super Bowl, a matchup between the Los Angeles Rams and New England Patriots.

After two seasons marred by black NFL players taking a Colin Kaepernick-style knee or raising a ‘Black Power’ fist during the National Anthem, television ratings slightly improved during the 2018 season.

[...]

So even if you are not a fan of the NFL, or don’t like the antics of black players who knelt during the National Anthem, there’s nothing wrong with rooting for the New England Patriots and Tom Brady to win Super Bowl 53. In a league where 72.6 percent of the players are POC, there’s nothing wrong with cheering for a team that looks a little more like you.

It’s the white thing to do.

He supplies one good reason NOT to root for the Patriots or any NFL team, here:

Ibid. That year, largely because of pressure from the owners of NFL’s 32 franchises, the league saw only a handful of black athletes—who account for 69.7 percent of the players—take a knee during the anthem. A recent poll of NFL fans shows only 24 percent of white fans strongly support the anthem protests, while 59 percent of blacks do (47 percent of white fans and 7 percent of black fans strongly oppose them). Though the kneeling stopped, the owners did create an $89 million fund for the players to hand out to “improve social justice and racial equality in our country.

Related at Majorityrights:

Seduction of NFL Films, Appeal of L.A. Rams 60’s, 70’s, dodging legacy of sports-fan cuckoldry

Our football coaches weren’t Marxists imposing black integration