Majorityrights News > Category: U.S. Politics

The Dark Side of Self Actualization

..illustrating the inherent instability of the right -

The reflexive reversal of Derek Black - precociously showing early signs to be a leader of White Nationalism, he has done a 180: he renounces anti-Semitism, studies Islamic culture, calling for empathy for this culture which “was advanced of European culture” at a time when Europe was a backwater; says that he agrees with Hillary Clinton’s positions in 97%; claims that he does not believe in the White genocide meme that he helped to popularize because “race is a false concept anyway.”

That comes along with an array of cultural Marxist concepts that he now subscribes-to.

Derek Black pictured Sept. 25, 2016. “It’s scary to know that I helped spread this stuff, and now it’s out there,” he told a friend, alluding to the ideology he once promoted. (Matt McClain/Washington Post)

The Washington Post, “The white flight of Derek Black”, 15 Oct 2016:

“The leading light of our movement,” was how the conference organizer introduced him, and then Derek stepped to the lectern.

“The way ahead is through politics,” he said. “We can infiltrate. We can take the country back.”

[...]

He never used racial slurs. He didn’t advocate violence or lawbreaking. He had won a Republican committee seat in Palm Beach County, Fla., where Trump also had a home, without ever mentioning white nationalism, talking instead about the ravages of political correctness, affirmative action and unchecked Hispanic immigration.

He was not only a leader of racial politics but also a product of them. His father, Don Black, had created Stormfront, the Internet’s first and largest white nationalist site, with 300,000 users and counting. His mother, Chloe, had once been married to David Duke, one of the country’s most infamous racial zealots, and Duke had become Derek’s godfather. They had raised Derek at the forefront of the movement, and some white nationalists had begun calling him “the heir.”

Now Derek spoke in Memphis about the future of their ideology. “The Republican Party has to be either demolished or taken over,” he said. “I’m kind of banking on the Republicans staking their claim as the white party.”

A few people in the audience started to clap, and then a few more began to whistle, and before long the whole group was applauding. “Our moment,” Derek said, because at least in this room there was consensus. They believed white nationalism was about to drive a political revolution. They believed, at least for the moment, that Derek would help lead it.

“Years from now, we will look back on this,” he said. “The great intellectual move to save white people started today.”

[...]

“It’s been brought to my attention that people might be scared or intimidated or even feel unsafe here because of things said about me,” he began. “I wanted to try to address these concerns publicly, as they absolutely should not exist. I do not support oppression of anyone because of his or her race, creed, religion, gender, socioeconomic status or anything similar.”

The forum post, intended only for the college, was leaked to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which kept a public “Intelligence File” on Derek and other racist leaders, and the group emailed Derek for clarification. Was he disavowing white nationalism? “Your views are now quite different from what many people thought,” the email read.

Derek received the message while vacationing in Europe during winter break. He was staying with Duke, who had started broadcasting his radio show from a part of Europe with lenient free-speech laws. “The tea party is taking some of these ideas mainstream,” Duke said on a broadcast one morning. “Whites are finally coming around to my point of view,” he said another day, and even if Derek now thought some of what Duke said sounded exaggerated or even alarming, the man was still his godfather. Derek wrote back to the SPLC from Duke’s couch.

“Everything I said (on the forum) is true,” he wrote. “I also believe in White Nationalism. My post and my racial ideology are not mutually exclusive concepts.”

[...]

But the unstated truth was that Derek was becoming more and more confused about exactly what he believed. Sometimes he looked through posts on Stormfront, hoping to reaffirm his ideology, but now the message threads about Obama’s birth certificate or DNA tests for citizenship just seemed bizarre and conspiratorial. He stopped posting on Stormfront. He began inventing excuses to get out of his radio show, leaving his father alone on the air each morning to explain why Derek wouldn’t be calling in. He was preparing for a test. He was giving those liberal professors hell. Except sometimes what Derek was really doing was taking his kayak to the beach, so he could be alone to think.

He had always based his opinions on fact, and lately his logic was being dismantled by emails from his Shabbat friends. They sent him links to studies showing that racial disparities in IQ could largely be explained by extenuating factors like prenatal nutrition and educational opportunities. They gave him scientific papers about the effects of discrimination on blood pressure, job performance and mental health. He read articles about white privilege and the unfair representation of minorities on television news. One friend emailed: “The geNOcide against whites is incredibly, horribly insulting and degrading to real, actual, lived and experienced genocides against Jews, against Rwandans, against Armenians, etc.”

“I don’t hate anyone because of race or religion,” Derek clarified on the forum.

“I am not a white supremacist,” he wrote.

“I don’t believe people of any race, religion or otherwise should have to leave their homes or be segregated or lose any freedom.”

“Derek,” a friend responded. “I feel like you are a representative of a movement you barely buy into. You need to identify with more than 1/50th of a belief system to consider it your belief system.”

He was taking classes in Jewish scripture and German multiculturalism during his last year at New College, but most of his research was focused on medieval Europe. He learned that Western Europe had begun not as a great society of genetically superior people but as a technologically backward place that lagged behind Islamic culture. He studied the 8th century to the 12th century, trying to trace back the modern concepts of race and whiteness, but he couldn’t find them anywhere. “We basically just invented it,” he concluded.

“Get out of this,” one of his Shabbat friends emailed a few weeks after Derek’s graduation in May 2013, urging Derek to publicly disavow white nationalism. “Get out before it ruins some part of your future more than it already irreparably has.”

Derek stayed near campus to housesit for a professor after graduation, and he began to consider making a public statement. He knew he no longer believed in white nationalism, and he had made plans to distance himself from his past by changing part of his name and moving across the country for graduate school. His instinct was to slip away quietly, but his advocacy had always been public — a legacy of radio shows, Internet posts, TV appearances, and an annual conference on racial tactics.

He was still considering what to do when he returned home to visit his parents later that summer. His father was tracking the rise of white nationalism on cable TV, and his parents were talking about “enemies” and “comrades” in the “ongoing war,” but now it sounded ridiculous to Derek. He spent the day rebuilding windows with them, which was one of Derek’s quirky hobbies that his parents had always supported. They had bought his guitar and joined in his medieval re-enactments. They had paid his tuition at the liberal arts college where he had Shabbat dinners. They had taught him, most of all, to be independent and ideological, and to speak his beliefs even when doing so resulted in backlash.

He left the house that night and went to a bar. He took out his computer and began writing a statement.

“A large section of the community I grew up in believes strongly in white nationalism, and members of my family whom I respect greatly, particularly my father, have long been resolute advocates for that cause. I was not prepared to risk driving a wedge in those relationships.

“After a great deal of thought since then, I have resolved that it is in the best interests of everyone involved to be honest about my slow but steady disaffiliation from white nationalism. I can’t support a movement that tells me I can’t be a friend to whomever I wish or that other people’s races require me to think of them in a certain way or be suspicious at their advancements.

“The things I have said as well as my actions have been harmful to people of color, people of Jewish descent, activists striving for opportunity and fairness for all. I am sorry for the damage done.”

He continued to write for several more paragraphs before addressing an email to the SPLC, the group his father had considered a primary adversary for 40 years.

“Publish in full,” Derek instructed. Then he attached the letter and hit “send.”

Don was at the computer the next afternoon searching Google when Derek’s name popped up in a headline on his screen. For a decade, Don had been typing “Stormfront” and “Derek Black” into the search bar a few times each week to track his son’s public rise in white nationalism. This particular story had been published by the SPLC, which Don had always referred to as the “Poverty Palace.”

“Activist Son of Key Racist Leader Renounces White Nationalism,” it read, and Don began to read the letter. It had phrases like “structural oppression,” “privilege,” “limited opportunity,” and “marginalized groups” — the kind of liberal-apologist language Don and Derek had often made fun of on the radio.

“You got hacked,” Don remembered telling Derek, once he reached him on the phone.

“It’s real,” Derek said, and then he heard the sound of his father hanging up.

For the next few hours, Don was in disbelief.

[...]

Later that night, Don logged on to the Stormfront message board. “I’m sure this will be all over the Net and our local media, so I’ll start here,” he wrote, posting a link to Derek’s letter. “I don’t want to talk to him. He says he doesn’t understand why we’d feel betrayed just because he announced his ‘personal beliefs’ to our worst enemies.”

[...]

Late this summer, for the first time in years, he traveled to Florida to see them. At a time of increasingly contentious rhetoric, he wanted to hear what his father had to say. They sat in the house and talked about graduate school and Don’s new German shepherd. But after a while, their conversation turned back to ideology, the topic they had always preferred.

Don, who usually didn’t vote, said he was going to support Trump.

Derek said he had taken an online political quiz, and his views aligned 97 percent with Hillary Clinton’s.

Don said immigration restrictions sounded like a good start.

Derek said he actually believed in more immigration, because he had been studying the social and economic benefits of diversity.

Don thought that would result in a white genocide.

Derek thought race was a false concept anyway.

Trump’s “anti-global elite speech”

He sandwiches a claim to be challenging the corrupt global elite on behalf of the (propositional) American people around a belabored defense against charges of sexual impropriety.

Besides going on a bit too long in defense against those claims, it is a skillful speech. He does much better than in the first two debates.

Of course he also skillfully bypasses the fact that he is in bed with the YKW and their global plans. While not necessarily a plant, Trump was obviously offered a chance at the presidency if he would take on the Iran deal. Upon his acceptance of that task, they opportunistically put him in front of trends that they can play to their advantage - not dog whistles, but biscuits and bones with even a bit of meat to throw at America’s proposition nation: “anti-globalism and internationalism”.. “the alternative right”..and “exposure of corrupt government” .. now that the Internet has made hiding these issues less possible… with panmixia already well under way anyway, suddenly WN are no longer encouraged to abide their long standing perspective of wryly looking upon the Republicans/Democrats as two sides of the same coin….The YKW have done well to corral WN into a voting block pro-American, anti PC with the “counter” of being anti-discriminatory ..to co-opt White nationalism and defuse it into propositionalism. Some Whites will continue to get richer there - the kind who do not care very much about race and the deteriorating prospects for ethnonationalism - prospects which will deteriorate further with a Trump presidency (no endorsement of Hillary implied).

Arutz, “50% of donations to Hillary Clinton’s campaign come from Jewish contributors, according to a new study”, 9 Oct. 2016:

A new report presented by Gil Troy of Mcgill University in Canada, shows that 50% of donations to Secretary Clinton’s campaign come from Jewish contributors. The study also found that 25% of donations to the Republican Party also come from Jewish donors.

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Troy stated that this is why presidential campaigns are aimed at Jews even though they only make up 2% of American voters.

Professor Troy also stated that the electorate system is preferential towards states that have large Jewish populations like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

In those states, there isn’t a clear winner for either candidate but they have large Jewish electorates and the Jewish voice becomes very meaningful.

Troy estimates that 70% of Jews will vote for Hilary in November, which is similar to the percent of Jews that voted for Barack Obama in the last elections. According to Troy, in meetings with Republican officials, Jewish contributors still mostly support the Democratic Party, despite the unwavering pro-Israeli policy of the Republican Party.

TNO, “Treason: Clinton Knows Saudis Fund ISIS”, 11 Oct. 2016:

Hillary Clinton knew back in 2014 that the Saudi Arabian government has been secretly funding and supplying ISIS—but deliberately chose to keep this secret, probably because the Saudi government gives millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton’s shocking treason to America has been revealed in one of her emails, sent to her campaign chairman John Podesta, as now published by Wikileaks.

When Clinton sent the email to Podesta on August 17, 2014, the latter was still working as a “counselor” to President Barack Obama—which means that the president and his administration are all aware of the Saudi funding for ISIS.

In addition, the government of Qatar—another great “ally” of America and friend of the Clinton Foundation—is also named by Clinton in her email as giving financial and logistical support to ISIS.

The relevant part of Clinton’s email—written by her from her personal email address of hrod17 @ clintonemail.com, says that the United States should support Kurdish forces on the ground with U.S. military advisers and avoid the use of a conventional ground operation.

“While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” Clinton wrote.

She continued: “This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the [Kurdish Regional Government]. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure.”

Clinton’s decision to cover up the truth about Saudi Arabia from the public and the world at large is unquestionably linked to the fact that the Saudis have donated in excess of $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, which was co-founded by a Saudi prince.

In addition, according to the Clinton Foundation’s own records, the “State of Qatar” gave between “$1 and $5 million” to that organization.

Breitbart, “Fact-Check: Yes, Hillary Clinton Did Laugh After Successfully Defending a Child Rapist”, 9 Oct. 2016:

During the second presidential debate, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said, “Hillary Clinton attacked them viciously,” referring to former president Bill Clinton’s female victims and a child rape victim whose attacker Clinton defended.

“One of them is a wonderful woman, [who] at 12 years old was raped. At twelve. Her client — she represented — got him off, laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl that was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman, is here with us tonight. So, don’t tell me about words,” Trump said. 

Fact-Check: TRUE

In the mid-1980s, journalist Roy Reed interviewed Hillary Clinton, and a tape of that interview has been uploaded to YouTube and is available in the Special Collections Department of the University of Arkansas libraries. 

“He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton said about her client Thomas Alfred Taylor, who raped Shelton in 1975, laughing.

Clinton also laughed in the video about saving the child rapist from a “miscarriage of justice.” He served one year in county jail, with two months shaved off his sentence for the time he already served. Shelton’s injuries were so traumatic, she could never have children.

WATCH:

Clinton also argued in court that the 12-year-old rape victim sought out older men.

Shelton came forward after 40 years of silence, as reported by the Daily Mail:

  A child rape victim says she cannot forgive Hillary Clinton for defending her rapist in court 40 years ago, saying the Democratic presidential candidate attacked her credibility despite knowing that her assailant was guilty – and later laughed about it in a taped interview.

  Kathy Shelton was just 12 years old when a 41-year-old drifter raped her on the side of a desolate Arkansas road in 1975.

  Now, four decades later, she has agreed to be named and pictured for the first time in this Daily Mail Online exclusive because she is furious that her rapist’s defense attorney – Hillary Clinton – has been portraying herself as a lifelong advocate of women and girls on the campaign trail.

  ‘It’s put a lot of anger back in me,’ said Shelton, now 54, in an exclusive interview at her Springdale, Arkansas, home in August. ‘Every time I see [Clinton] on TV I just want to reach in there and grab her, but I can’t do that.’

  In 1975, Clinton served as the defense lawyer for Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old factory worker accused of raping Shelton after luring her to his car.

  Taylor pleaded down to ‘unlawful fondling of a minor’ and served less than a year in prison after Clinton was able to block the admission of forensic evidence that linked her client to the crime.

Shelton also tweeted about her suffering at Hillary’s hands.

Kathy Shelton @KathyShelton_

I don’t care if Trump said gross things. I care that Hillary Clinton lied, terrorized, & mocked me, defending my rapist.
1:20 AM - 10 Oct 2016

Kathy Shelton @KathyShelton_

Hillary Clinton an advocate for women & children? Not even close..

She terrorized me during my rape case & later laughed about it. #facts
1:25 AM - 10 Oct 2016

Kathy Shelton @KathyShelton_

If I’d had justice vs my rapist, maybe I could have healed. But Hillary Clinton made sure I suffered loss of justice, then laughed it off.
1:29 AM - 10 Oct 2016

Kathy Shelton @KathyShelton_

Hillary Clinton is a cold-hearted liar. The lies she told about me, 12 yr old rape victim, traumatized me nearly as much as the rape itself.
1:37 AM - 10 Oct 2016

Kathy Shelton @KathyShelton_

No little girl should suffer violent rape like I did…

But no grown woman should attack that little girl like @HillaryClinton did. #debate
2:47 AM - 10 Oct 2016

Kathy Shelton @KathyShelton_

At 12 I was one of the first women Hillary Clinton destroyed, but I wasn’t the last. Please put an end to this woman’s career of abusing us.
2:54 AM - 10 Oct 2016

ONENN, “Remark by Hillary’s top aide infuriates Jewish people”, 9 Oct 2016:

Hillary C. with Huma AbedinHuma Abedin – the longtime top aide of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – was caught disparaging the Jewish community in an email exchange that recently surfaced in the Democratic presidential nominee’s ongoing private email scandal.

Volumes of emails that President Barack Obama’s State Department was ordered to release in its ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit were obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, which discovered a problematic troubling email trail involving involving an anti-Semitic comment made by Abedin while serving under Clinton during the standing president’s first term.

According to the Daily Caller, Abedin portrayed a hostility toward the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – and toward Jewish People in general.

Islamic anti-Semitism?

Huma Mahmood Abedin, who currently serves as vice chairwoman of Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, is the daughter of fundamentalist Muslim parents. Her father, who is of Indian descent, was an Islamic and Middle Eastern scholar who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs and ran the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Abedin’s mother was born in present-day Pakistan in a highly Islamic region.

It is inferred that her strong upbringing in Islam has grounded her anti-Semitism that was demonstrated in her 2009 email exchange, where she calls attendees at AIPAC “that crowd” and suggests that former President Bill Clinton not associate with such people.

An analysis of the back-and-forth Abedin had regarding the Jewish American event has led many to believe that Clinton’s relationship with Jewish Americans and Israel would be strained, at best – if elected president of the United States in November.

“Huma Abedin – Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s closest aide – urged former President Bill Clinton in 2009 to reject a speaking invitation before the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC), asking his assistant in an email: do ‘u really want to consider sending him into that crowd?’” the Daily Caller reported.

Continuing Obama’s anti-Israeli foreign policy legacy in the White House?

The slight was not taken lightly by many in top positions who realize that anti-Semitism at such a high level in the government can adversely affect Jewish American relations in the United States and Israeli relations abroad, where the Jewish State is constantly being bombarded by Palestinian jihadists and Islamic militants in the surrounding volatile region of the Middle East – often referred to as the “Powder Keg.”

“Abedin’s comment about ‘that crowd’ has sparked anger and consternation among Jewish and non-Jewish leaders who consider it hostile to Jews and to the State of Israel,” the daily informed. “Her comments are raising uncomfortable questions about Abedin’s past and her family’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Zionist Organization of America National President Morton Klein was repulsed by Abedin’s condescending remark geared toward the Jewish community in her email.

“[Abedin’s email is] appalling,” Klein expressed, according to the Daily Caller. “[It] shows hostility toward Jews and Israel, in light of the fact that ‘that crowd’ gives huge ovations to White House speakers.”

Klein asserts that earlier reports circulating about connections Abedin’s family has with a recognized Islamic terrorist group raises even more cause for concern with the unleashing of the controversial emails from Clinton’s top aide.

“It makes me think about the allegations about her parents and other family members who were associated with the Muslim Brotherhood,” Klein voiced.

       
        Marc Zell - “The majority of the 200,000 registered U.S. voters in Israel – half of whom are women –would still support Trump.”

Breitbart, “Trump Camp In Israel: We Still Support Him Despite Lewd Comments; He’s Not Running For Chief Rabbi”, 9 Oct. 2016:

TEL AVIV – The Israel director of Republicans Overseas said on Sunday that he and other Republicans in the Jewish state would still vote for Donald Trump despite the lewd audio recording released over the weekend.

Marc Zell said that he and his five daughters will be voting for Trump, and maintained that the majority of the 200,000 registered U.S. voters in Israel – half of whom are women –would still support Trump “with all of his shortcomings.”

“I’m saying he doesn’t need to [resign]. He did what he did. His comments are disgusting and absolutely unacceptable, we are against it,” Zell told Israel’s Army Radio. But “he said he’s not perfect, he apologized.”

He added that there is “no chance” Trump will quit.

According to Zell, Trump’s decade-old comments pale in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s offenses, not least of which are the leaked emails – also released over the weekend – showing her questionable relationship with Wall Street.

“The public wants Trump, with all of his shortcomings, over Clinton with her failures, her corruption, her lies,” he said.

“I have five daughters and they will all, all, vote for Trump,” Zell added.

As several GOP leaders announced the withdrawal of support for Trump following the audio’s release, Zell called on Republicans to band together.

“I call upon all the Republican leadership, who understand like we do that we need a change to the White House immediately and undo eight years of damage caused by Obama and Clinton to the United States around the world — to unite and to support the ticket, from the top to the bottom,” Zell said.

Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign manager in Israel Tzvika Brot told Army Radio that it “was good he regretted [his comments], but he isn’t running for chief rabbi. There are only perfect leaders in Hollywood.”