Majorityrights News > Category: Free Speech

Background Briefing recently interviewed Johathan Taplin about his book, Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermine Democracy, and his op-ed at The New York Times, Google’s Disturbing Influence Over Think Tanks.

Some highlights: The New America Foundation funded a group called The Open Markets Group, which was headed by a guy named Barry Lynn; and they were the most important group of scholars looking at monopoly in America. When the EU sanctioned Google with a 2.7 billion dollar fine, The Open Markets Group put out a statement applauding the EU and saying American anti-trust regulators should follow their example. Eric Schmidt, the Executive Chairman of Google, who provides most of the financing for the New American Foundation, was incredibly angry about this and essentially told the leader of New America, Ann Marie Slaughter, that she had to get rid of the Open Markets Group. She then wrote Barry Lynn an email saying that they had to leave by September 1, and essentially fired them. This is exactly the kind of political pressure that Google plies all over the world in terms of not just academic institutions, but think tanks and others in order to keep the political narrative in their favor and not have people who oppose them.

They pay off academics and think tanks, getting them to write favorable articles (totaling a hundred from each) about Google and denying their monopoly. This is how Google curries influence by dominating the communications channels of Washington D.C.

Eric Schmidt, who is the biggest funder of the New American Foundation and who is one of the top executives at Google, was the number one visitor during the Obama administration. He was logged in more times visiting the White House than any other single person in the entire eight years of the administration.

Google’s regulatory capture: not only was Schmidt the most frequent White House visitor, more than any other CEO, by a long shot. But then Schmidt was able to put people from Google into the various agencies in the Obama administration. So, the person who ran the Patent Office was formerly the person who ran Google’s patent practice; the person who was the Assistant Attorney General for anti-trust in the Obama administration was the person who had been Google’s anti-trust attorney. Google had people high-up in The Federal Communications Agency. It was pernicious, it was everywhere…

One could say “Eric Schmidt is a liberal” and “he’s helping Hillary Clinton”, but literally the day after Clinton lost he was out there communicating with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the hopes of getting in bed with Trump. Not only did he extend invitations to them to come to his conference in Italy; but he also went to the White House and railed on about how Trump was going to be a great help to the economy with his new initiatives; so, its very clear that he has very little political conscience what-so-ever; he’s just going to go where the money is.

People from all sides are recognizing the Google has too much money and power to frame narratives, to shape and influence culture; its platforms such as Facebook and Youtube are not only the way 3/4 of Americans get real news, but also conduits of propaganda: e.g., Steve Bannon and the Mercers used market targeting in their campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton, used social media very skillfully with fake news, used Russian bots to amplify their effect. An interesting note along with that, the intelligence community observes that Eric Schmidt’s daughter worked for SCL, the company that controlled Cambridge Analytica - the company that Mercer owns and that Steve Bannon’s on the board of.

They couldn’t have done what they did if there hadn’t been these two open platforms, Facebook and Youtube, which you could totally manipulate; there was nobody at the control of these platforms to block fake news in favor of Trump. However, there is no pornography on Youtube, which means that Youtube has very sophisticated technology which could filter out fake news, propaganda, etc., if desired.

Google’s market capture is profound, its users provide content and profiles (which marketers value, of course) which competitors cannot match. Google is not just a virtual monopoly, not just one of the most wealthy companies, it is the richest company and perhaps the most powerful monopoly ever. More:

New York Times, “Is It Time to Break Up Google?”, 22 Aug 2017:

By Johathan Taplin

In just 10 years, the world’s five largest companies by market capitalization have all changed, save for one: Microsoft. Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Citigroup and Shell Oil are out and Apple, Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Amazon and Facebook have taken their place.

They’re all tech companies, and each dominates its corner of the industry: Google has an 88 percent market share in search advertising, Facebook (and its subsidiaries Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger) owns 77 percent of mobile social traffic and Amazon has a 74 percent share in the e-book market. In classic economic terms, all three are monopolies.

We have been transported back to the early 20th century, when arguments about “the curse of bigness” were advanced by President Woodrow Wilson’s counselor, Louis Brandeis, before Wilson appointed him to the Supreme Court. Brandeis wanted to eliminate monopolies, because (in the words of his biographer Melvin Urofsky) “in a democratic society the existence of large centers of private power is dangerous to the continuing vitality of a free people.” We need look no further than the conduct of the largest banks in the 2008 financial crisis or the role that Facebook and Google play in the “fake news” business to know that Brandeis was right.

While Brandeis generally opposed regulation — which, he worried, inevitably led to the corruption of the regulator — and instead advocated breaking up “bigness,” he made an exception for “natural” monopolies, like telephone, water and power companies and railroads, where it made sense to have one or a few companies in control of an industry.

Could it be that these companies — and Google in particular — have become natural monopolies by supplying an entire market’s demand for a service, at a price lower than what would be offered by two competing firms? And if so, is it time to regulate them like public utilities?

Consider a historical analogy: the early days of telecommunications.

In 1895 a photograph of the business district of a large city might have shown 20 phone wires attached to most buildings. Each wire was owned by a different phone company, and none of them worked with the others. Without network effects, the networks themselves were almost useless.

The solution was for a single company, American Telephone and Telegraph, to consolidate the industry by buying up all the small operators and creating a single network — a natural monopoly. The government permitted it, but then regulated this monopoly through the Federal Communications Commission.

AT&T (also known as the Bell System) had its rates regulated, and was required to spend a fixed percentage of its profits on research and development. In 1925 AT&T set up Bell Labs as a separate subsidiary with the mandate to develop the next generation of communications technology, but also to do basic research in physics and other sciences. Over the next 50 years, the basics of the digital age — the transistor, the microchip, the solar cell, the microwave, the laser, cellular telephony — all came out of Bell Labs, along with eight Nobel Prizes.

In a 1956 consent decree in which the Justice Department allowed AT&T to maintain its phone monopoly, the government extracted a huge concession: All past patents were licensed (to any American company) royalty-free, and all future patents were to be licensed for a small fee. These licenses led to the creation of Texas Instruments, Motorola, Fairchild Semiconductor and many other start-ups.

True, the internet never had the same problems of interoperability. And Google’s route to dominance is different from the Bell System’s. Nevertheless it still has all of the characteristics of a public utility.

We are going to have to decide fairly soon whether Google, Facebook and Amazon are the kinds of natural monopolies that need to be regulated, or whether we allow the status quo to continue, pretending that unfettered monoliths don’t inflict damage on our privacy and democracy.

It is impossible to deny that Facebook, Google and Amazon have stymied innovation on a broad scale. To begin with, the platforms of Google and Facebook are the point of access to all media for the majority of Americans. While profits at Google, Facebook and Amazon have soared, revenues in media businesses like newspaper publishing or the music business have, since 2001, fallen by 70 percent.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, newspaper publishers lost over half their employees between 2001 and 2016. Billions of dollars have been reallocated from creators of content to owners of monopoly platforms. All content creators dependent on advertising must negotiate with Google or Facebook as aggregator, the sole lifeline between themselves and the vast internet cloud.

It’s not just newspapers that are hurting. In 2015 two Obama economic advisers, Peter Orszag and Jason Furman, published a paper arguing that the rise in “supernormal returns on capital” at firms with limited competition is leading to a rise in economic inequality. The M.I.T. economists Scott Stern and Jorge Guzman explained that in the presence of these giant firms, “it has become increasingly advantageous to be an incumbent, and less advantageous to be a new entrant.”

There are a few obvious regulations to start with. Monopoly is made by acquisition — Google buying AdMob and DoubleClick, Facebook buying Instagram and WhatsApp, Amazon buying, to name just a few, Audible, Twitch, Zappos and Alexa. At a minimum, these companies should not be allowed to acquire other major firms, like Spotify or Snapchat.

The second alternative is to regulate a company like Google as a public utility, requiring it to license out patents, for a nominal fee, for its search algorithms, advertising exchanges and other key innovations.

The third alternative is to remove the “safe harbor” clause in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows companies like Facebook and Google’s YouTube to free ride on the content produced by others. The reason there are 40,000 Islamic State videos on YouTube, many with ads that yield revenue for those who posted them, is that YouTube does not have to take responsibility for the content on its network. Facebook, Google and Twitter claim that policing their networks would be too onerous. But that’s preposterous: They already police their networks for pornography, and quite well.

Removing the safe harbor provision would also force social networks to pay for the content posted on their sites. A simple example: One million downloads of a song on iTunes would yield the performer and his record label about $900,000. One million streams of that same song on YouTube would earn them about $900.

I’m under no delusion that, with libertarian tech moguls like Peter Thiel in President Trump’s inner circle, antitrust regulation of the internet monopolies will be a priority. Ultimately we may have to wait four years, at which time the monopolies will be so dominant that the only remedy will be to break them up. Force Google to sell DoubleClick. Force Facebook to sell WhatsApp and Instagram.

Woodrow Wilson was right when he said in 1913, “If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of the government.” We ignore his words at our peril.

  Mark Collett on the Jewish role in the refugee crisis.
 

  Related Story - J CORE: It’s All Worse, More Organized & More Them Than Even You Think.

Related article: A Bridge Too Near

Unhinge the Right

Video shows car crashing into Charlottesville protest. Witnesses say that it was absolutely intentional; it is being treated as homicide.

Fox News, A 32-year-old woman was killed Saturday and 19 others were injured, five of them critically, when a car rammed into a group of counter-protesters during the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va.

Virginia Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran told the Associated Press that the driver of the car, a man, was in custody. Moran did not provide the driver’s name.

While following the goings on of the “Unite The Right Rally” in Charlottesville, in a live feed, Tara McCarthy took friendly questions from the likes of Roosh V. and fielded reports from the likes of Pax Dickinson, recommending that people contribute to his Mencious Moldbug (a Jewish man of Neo Reactionary fame) backed crowdfunding; Tara scolded “The Left” for counter-protesting what she says was meant to be a peaceful rally for free speech, and to encourage “normies” to join the cause of ethno-nationalism by showing them they’re not a bunch of neo-Nazis, skinheads and so-on. She might have wondered how that was supposed to happen with the motley array of right wingers that showed-up, including Commander Jeff Schoep’s Neo-Nazi group in full regalia, Carolina K.K.K., Matt Heimbach’s Jesus Freak Group, calling itself “The Traditional Workers Party” and a skinhead gang called “The Detroit Right Wings.” 

    ...and look at the headliners, starting with Mike Enoch Peinovich:

Yep, (((they’ve))) marshaled a reactionary formation against the so-called “left.” 

...with plenty of warning beforehand to nearly assure that there would be violence and prison sentences for those reactionaries coming most unhinged.

A death, dozens injured, including five critically, and a ruined life for the perpetrator of the car attack was only a somewhat surprising outcome of this mix.

Fox News, “Charlottesville white nationalist rally blamed for 3 deaths, dozens of injuries”, 12 Aug 2017:

A 32-year-old woman was killed Saturday and 19 others were injured, five of them critically, when a car rammed into a group of counter-protesters during the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va.

A helicopter crash that killed the pilot and a passenger later in the afternoon outside the university town also was linked to the rally by State Police, though officials did not elaborate on how the crash was connected.

At a late afternoon news conference, Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas said that 35 people had been injured in various confrontations during the rally and made a point of saying that none of those involved his officers. Thomas also said that the car crash was being treated as an act of “criminal homicide.”

READ MORE...

Tara McCarthy ♥️@TaraMcCarthy_14 Jul 22
Replying to @MajorityRights

Anyone who talks about the JQ gets shut down. I don’t have a choice.

daniel sienkiewicz‏ @MajorityRights Jul 22
Replying to @TaraMcCarthy_14

It’s not Not talking about the JQ that’s the big problem, it’s going along with their wish to make “The Left” the enemy that is the problem.

In ordinary language, “left” corresponds with unionization of people against elitist bullying and betrayal.

With J’s on top, they cooperate with right wing sellouts to argue that “The left” is the enemy as they don’t want us organizing against them.

What has been called “the Left” by the (((controlled media and academia))) is liberalism as it applies to Whites. It is not a White Left.

(((They)))‘ve associated it with all manner of absurdity as they do not want Whites deploying the concept of unionization.

They do not want us to have the means of accountability and compassion for OUR marginals that would popularize our cause.

They want to say its all about “equality” but White Left ethno-nationalism doesn’t have to mean anything so absurd for us.

It doesn’t mean people can’t be wealthy; or that people who are not contributing as much to the social capital aren’t accountable as well.

It doesn’t deny the reality of race, genetics, science, differing human abilities and limitations..

But we do have some agency and choice, we can unionize as left ethnonationalists to protect ourselves in coordination with other (coalitions of) ethno-nationalists.

Alt Right/Lite is a (((paleocon))) scam to co-opt White reaction into the alienating, manipulable that’s just-the-way-it-isness of the right.

..“that’s just the way it is” - just so happens (((these people))) are on top, its “just nature”.  The problems are being caused by “THE Left” (now that its convenient for the YKW and right wing sellouts in cooperation to say-so).

Illustration: Is “The left” imposing Islam on Indonesia and Turkey? No. Left nationalism’s bitterly opposed to Islam &vis versa

daniel sienkiewicz‏ @MajorityRights Jul 22
Replying to @TaraMcCarthy_14

Blacks aren’t natural allies of Asians and neither are Jews, with their propensity to impose Abrahamism, its liberalism, Christian submissionaries and Muslim compradors over Asians

Salon, “Donald Trump’s Justice Department is fighting affirmative action for hurting white people”, 2 August 2017:

Attorney General Sessions is furthering an anti-civil rights agenda by investigating affirmative action.

I’m going to begin with an unusual order in approaching this article and surrounding discussion - viz., I will begin by looking at some comments on the matter because they throw light on how the YKW are misleading and manipulating people with a concept of “the left” - not letting it be properly understood as discriminatory social unionization and coalitions thereof, but rather having it oxymoronically accepted as liberalism for all but those unionizations circumscribed and actively represented inasmuch as they are good for YKW interests - themselves stealthily behind the scenes of the unionizations, markedly of the black interests that they have represented - viz., especially as it serves to rupture the effective patterns of their perceived enemies: would-be unionized White and Asian power.

Until recently, around 2008 with the subprime mortgage crisis; and the re-branding of (((Frank Meyer’s paleoconservatism))) as the “Alt-Right”, the YKW had not been so ardent nor effective in getting the public to argue that THE Left was the great problem of our times.

But looking at the essence of “the left” as the YKW have permitted it to be spoken of in the public domain, what we’ve had is Jewish led coalitions, internationally, of Jewish interests and crony capitalist interests; and domestically, in The U.S., primarily Jewish led coalitions of Africans, sundry Mulattoes, where convenient, gays, lesbians and feminists where they might perceive a common axe to grind against White men ...at the same time these Jewish led coalitions have not been organized for sympathy or fairness to Asians interests either.

After this point, 2008, when the YKW and complicit right-wing sell outs had presided over the boom bust cycle to where they stood firmly atop, they no longer had any use for advocating left coalitions of unions against the power - because the YKW had crossed the intersection, they had become the predominant organized power. Suddenly, “the left” became the pervasive enemy. ...and in the background, only one social unionization was tolerated by them - though not called “the left” - it was, of course, the union of Jews; and it became more brazenly right wing and supremacist with regard to other peoples, seeking only to cooperate with their right wing sell outs against those who might collectively organize as leftist coalitions against their elitism, supremacism and imperialism.

Thus, Gavin Chan has been maneuvered by Jewish journalese, a disingenuous framing of discourse, into talking in terms of “THE left” being antagonistic to his interests, without recognizing that this is neither a White Left, nor an Asian Left, but Jewish organized black and other PC left that has been used to attack those who most threaten the YKW - viz. Whites and Asians - as they threaten, especially in coalition, the only social unionization that the YKW want to remain effective - their own.

Gavin Chan · Dallas, Texas
Affirmative action is in fact the biggest middle finger to Asians. But the left leaves this detail out in most affirmative action discussions because Asians don’t fit into the leftist racial narrative.

Affirmative action in place to pay historical reparations, sure, but why at the expense of Asians? It’s absolute bs.

It’s time to end this super racist policy.

Gavin, they’ve given you the middle finger indeed with unions of blacks et. al, represented against you. But, where Elizabeth says..

Elizabeth Rodriguez · Ledyard, Connecticut
Sorry, but I don’t think Trump and Sessions are doing this to fight for Asian rights.

...that is true, they are not. They are doing this as a part of disingenuous quid pro-quo between Jews and complicit White right/alt-right wingers. I.e., they are not doing this for a White Left nor an Asian Left, but for a system controlled by (((the invisible hand))) in cooperation with whomever will take their deals, take their side and share their enemies where they might have the nerve to organize against their supramacism and imperialism.

The proper response is to recognize that a repeal of the Consent Decrees of the 1964 Civil Right Act would help alleviate some of the pressure of active enforcement of reverse discrimination, but it does not go far enough, it is not the White and Asian unionization and necessary coalition thereof - which would constitute, in the case of America, ethno-nationalisms in diaspora.

When you criticize “the racism” of affirmative action you are, in effect, criticizing group genetic unionization, the capacity for accountability thereof and thus to discriminate necessarily in group interests - that is not necessarily the same as being unfair and impervious - and leaves us only the fall-out of a civic nation, its muddles and deleterious demographic mixing - which will be horrifically unjust and destructive to systems- a destruction imposed by cultural Marxism these last 70 years, which operates irrespective of objectivist rules such as civil rights, by whatever stealthy social organization that remains effective behind the scenes, largely YKW.

Let’s focus more on the Salon article(s) now:

Some background: The Consent Decrees are effectively a scheme devised for U.S. Courts to stipulate and oversee enforcement of various concrete measures that must be taken over time to implement reverse discrimination, for all practical purposes, against White people (it eventually worked against Asians as well).

At first blush it appears to be simply good that this reverse discrimination of affirmative action might be overturned - and it really is good to an extent: at least it would repeal oversight of strict and punitive enforcement of (((Red Leftism))) and its defacto imposition of Mulatto supremacism over Whites (and Asians, Mestizos and Amerindians). It would curb the imposed liberalization of White (and Asian) boundaries in force since court decisions and consent decrees of the 50’s and 60’s; and make way for a return to a more generally liberal direction of civil individual rights, on the basis of civic nationalism - that, however, is always disingenuous. Who believes that the system is “objectively” backed?. What is the demographic make-up of this civic nation, where is it headed and which people have the invisible hand that is pulling the socially orchestrating strings that are not acknowledged?

Now that the demographic situation is muddled among the masses and unionized resistance appears near futile as it has been conflated for years with civic liberalism, Jewish interests are entrenched on top with the help of right wing sell outs they’ve bought off. They are now consistent in opposing “the left” - viz., unionized groups of people which might otherwise hold them to account. What they offer instead is civic nationalism and the mechanism of civil rights with no account to systemic backing other than the invisible hand that they, the YKW, and to some extent complicit right wing sell outs, control.

The initial financial boosters of the Trump administration, the people who made Trump’s presidency possible, are Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah. They fall into the complicit with Jews category, at best, they work things out with Jews. Witness their having put Judeo-Christian Steve Bannon (who believes “the dark frorces of the far east are the greatest threat to Western civilization) in charge of the Trump campaign as a condition of their backing. Nevertheless, Robert has long been an opponent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; and Sessions has obviously been tasked to set about deconstructing the 1964 Civil Rights Act; he was installed along with Bannon into the Trump administration apparently in large part with that aim.

Rebekah and her father Robert Mercer

NPR, 22 March 2017: “Jane Mayer - Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right.”

Jane Mayer writes in the New Yorker about Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah Mercer, who have poured millions of dollars into Breitbart News, and who pushed to have Bannon run Trump’s campaign. Robert and daughter Rebekah’s dark money is behind Bannon, Sessions,.. they were behind Flynn as well, would have been for Cruz, Bolton, almost anything but the Clintons.

Robert Mercer’s Opinions on 1964 Civil Rights Act:

According to a March 2017 New Yorker article by investigative journalist Jane Mayer, David Magerman, a former Renaissance employee, said that Mercer called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark federal statute arising from the civil rights movement of the 1960s, a “major mistake.” According to Magerman, Mercer said that African Americans were economically better off before the civil rights movement, that white racists no longer existed in the United States and that the only racists remaining were African American. Mercer vigorously denies being a white supremacist.

It remains true that White people, including ‘lower class White people” NEVER needed such black unions having their interests imposed upon them, as they were imposed by Jewish legalists, right wing sell outs and liberal stooges.

Thus, a repeal of the Consent Decrees could relieve Whites some - but only after untold damage has already been done to human biological systems and the demographic situation is hideously muddled and swamped - leaving the only one apparent way out in systemic support - through dealing with the YKW: an option that right wing sell outs and the Alternative Right have already exercised.

While they may have some problems with blacks that they may not want to own up to, but would rather look upon as the unfairness of affirmative action according to pure objectivist criteria and civic nationalism, none of these people behind and in the Trump administration have any great affection for Asians either. None of these people are anti-Semitic. The circumstance has all the hallmarks of a continued program of collaboration of elite and Zionist Jewry and right wing sell-out Whites: i.e., now that these folks are on top of the seven power niches, who needs left coalitions, unions of people discriminating in their interests? Especially not against Jewish supremaicism and elitist right wing interests.

The YKW, you see, are the only systemic union allowed in the end, by the cause of Red Leftism. Ever since around 2008 “the left” has been popularized as the great villain by the YKW in power - largely by means of the popularization of the (((paleoconservative underpinned))) Alternative Right.

But, in a word, the liberalism that they offer - even if they would repeal the Consent Decrees (which they will probably not succeed in implementing to any great effect for White interests free of Jewish instigation of pan mixia) - does not go nearly far enough: Systemic White interests need to be unionized such as to afford discriminatory accountability in the interests of our social capital - that is what is called an ethno-nation - and it must exclude the YKW from any pretense that they are White as well. Jews being considered “White” and a part of “Western Civilization” is obviously a key to the Session’s deal that they are floating to repeal the Consent Decrees. Jews cannot be trusted as part of our interest group for their manichean cunning and inevitable destruction to our people, any more than blacks can be a part of our people for their genetic distance and inevitably destructive biopower where it is allowed cohabitation and mixing.

The undoing of the Consent Decrees would be the theoretical ending of a Jewish led implementation of imposed black unionization and extortion against us all.

What we mean by unionization here is what we mean by ethno-nation on the broad scale and genetic interest groups on the subsidiary level - in our exclusionary interests.

The problem arises then with he fact that you still have to live in the world with other people as cooperatively as possible. Drawing upon friend enemy distinctions, most sane people would say Jews and blacks should be first to be most perfectly excluded; as people coordinated with at best, but not cooperated with in expectation of reciprocal good will.

Our best hope is in cooperating with coalitions of Asians, Amerindians and Mestizos against blacks and YKW.

Asian - Mestizo - White interaction is nevertheless, problematic and nobody wants to be naive - but if there is some way to coordinate our unions as a coalition against Jewish and other right wing supremaicsm, and Muslims and against black biopower, then we probably have the best possible coalition.

Of course the trick is how to manage these coalitions with Asians, Amerindians and Mestizos, without us getting abused - particularly with the Alt-Right, Right and Jews ostensibly representing us - The Asians, Amerindians and Mestizos might simply react by trying to swamp us in population if we let them, glibly citing historical grievances that we especially would have had nothing to do with, even historically; or they could do worse, taking guerilla tactics against us as if we are immune to cooperation, perhaps sicking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wvy5jXXg-E tuck ms 13”>the likes of MS13 on us if we don’t like their taking advantage, etc.

Some people would say that we do not have to coordinate with the better elements of these people; but in a world where we are faced with Jews, Muslims and Africans, and naive and disingenuous Whites, Jewed-out by Christianity, indeed we must try to coordinate with these peoples as left natonalist allies as best we can.

The Salon Article. An ostensible victory to unburden White servitude to blacks, but at what (((price))) and to what real effect, in whose “objective” interests?

Salon, “Donald Trump’s Justice Department is fighting affirmative action for hurting white people”, 2 August 2017:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is furthering an anti-civil rights agenda by investigating affirmative action.

The bromance between President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions may have soured, but that doesn’t mean the president isn’t supporting the most reactionary aspects of Sessions’ policies.

The Justice Department’s civil rights division is going to have some of its resources allocated toward lawsuits against universities over affirmative action policies perceived as hostile to white people, according to a document reported by The New York Times. The Times also reports that the internal announcement to the civil rights division explicitly asks for lawyers who would be willing to pursue “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

This policy exists as part of a larger anti-civil rights agenda being pursued by Trump and Sessions. In May, Sessions doubled down on the drug war by instructing prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.” In June, Sessions discontinued the use of consent decrees in civil rights cases, which goes against traditional Justice Department practice as it makes civil rights rulings more difficult to enforce. Last month the Justice Department argued that Title VII protections don’t apply to the LGBT community.

Despite these social justice policies, Sessions has mainly been in the news for his deteriorating relationship with Trump. Although the two were reported to be close friends for years, and through the 2016 election, things soured between them when Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation in March. Trump has blamed Sessions for what he perceives as a showing of weakness and said that he wouldn’t have selected Sessions as attorney general if he’d known he would do that.

Salon, “Trump Administration quietly rolls back Civil Rights efforts across federal government”, 15 June 2017: Previously unannounced directives will limit the Department of Justice’s use of civil rights enforcement tools - Consent Decrees

Topics: Civil Rights, Department of Justice, Jeff Sessions, ProPublica, Trump Administration, Politics News

For decades, the Department of Justice has used court-enforced agreements to protect civil rights, successfully desegregating school systems, reforming police departments, ensuring access for the disabled and defending the religious.

Now, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the DOJ appears to be turning away from this storied tool, called consent decrees. Top officials in the DOJ civil rights division have issued verbal instructions through the ranks to seek settlements without consent decrees — which would result in no continuing court oversight.

The move is just one part of a move by the Trump administration to limit federal civil rights enforcement. Other departments have scaled back the power of their internal divisions that monitor such abuses. In a previously unreported development, the Education Department last week reversed an Obama-era reform that broadened the agency’s approach to protecting rights of students. The Labor Department and the Environmental Protection Agency have also announced sweeping cuts to their enforcement.

“At best, this administration believes that civil rights enforcement is superfluous and can be easily cut. At worst, it really is part of a systematic agenda to roll back civil rights,” said Vanita Gupta, the former acting head of the DOJ’s civil rights division under President Barack Obama.

Consent decrees have not been abandoned entirely by the DOJ, a person with knowledge of the instructions said. Instead, there is a presumption against their use — attorneys should default to using settlements without court oversight unless there is an unavoidable reason for a consent decree. The instructions came from the civil rights division’s office of acting Assistant Attorney General Tom Wheeler and Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Gore. There is no written policy guidance.

Devin O’Malley, a spokesperson for the DOJ, declined to comment for this story.

Consent decrees can be a powerful tool, and spell out specific steps that must be taken to remedy the harm. These are agreed to by both parties and signed off on by a judge, whom the parties can appear before again if the terms are not being met. Though critics say the DOJ sometimes does not enforce consent decrees well enough, they are more powerful than settlements that aren’t overseen by a judge and have no built-in enforcement mechanism.

Such settlements have “far fewer teeth to ensure adequate enforcement,” Gupta said.

Consent decrees often require agencies or municipalities to take expensive steps toward reform. Local leaders and agency heads then can point to the binding court authority when requesting budget increases to ensure reforms. Without consent decrees, many localities or government departments would simply never make such comprehensive changes, said William Yeomans, who spent 26 years at the DOJ, mostly in the civil rights division.

“They are key to civil rights enforcement,” he said. “That’s why Sessions and his ilk don’t like them.”

READ MORE...

Western Spring, “Jez Turner at the JTMM – Talks of Three Essential Truths!”, 27 July 2017:

Jez Turner was the fifth guest speaker at the recent John Tyndall Memorial Meeting and in his speech he examines whether we have the ability or the time to awaken our people to the dangers that beset us? He goes on to develop his theme by presenting what he sees as three essential truths about which we should be aware; the truth of race; the truth of power and the truth about the agenda.

ez ends his speech by talking about the dedication, determination and resilience exhibited by most nationalists, qualities that John Tyndall epitomised, devoting as he did, his entire life to our cause.

European Outlook, “Propaganda”, 31 July 2017:

By Bill Bailie #44 August 2017

Propaganda

Technology has revolutionised communications. Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg and changed the world. Benito Mussolini led the March on Rome to sieze power. And, in the sixties, we relied on street corner meetings and literature. Today, such primitive methods have been overtaken by the Internet.

A young Bill Baillie campaigning for John Bean’s British National Party in the 1964 general election.

We were not an insular nationalist party, we believed in European solidarity and social justice. I went overseas in 1965 and when I came home in 1970 we had been taken over by the National Front and our progressive policies had been dumped. I therefore joined Union Movement and embraced Oswald Mosley’s vision of ‘Europe a Nation’.

Social media is the modern way of communicating and video platforms such as Youtube are very effective. Donald Trump used Twitter and Facebook extensively in his presidential campaign and so did Emmanuel Macron in France.

Newspapers and magazines are expensive to produce and distribute but websites are affordable. We can reach more people on the Internet than we did in the old days by putting leaflets through letterboxes or selling newspapers on street corners. Competing with the mass media is obviously an unequal challenge but having discovered the truth it’s our duty to encourage people to think for themselves and reject media brainwashing.

Newspapers, radio and television dominate public opinion but we can fight back by using the Internet. The State uses anti-terrorist legislation to silence its enemies but we can stay within the law by avoiding insulting or threatening language.

Ten years ago immigration was a taboo subject and only the lunatic-left talked about a “crisis of capitalism.” Today, these ideas have gone mainstream and you don’t have to be a political party in order to have an opinion. So, carry on blogging and posting on Facebook and Twitter. Let our voices be heard.

A Garden Green by William Harris,
first published in ‘Lodestar’ Winter 1986

Each year brings thousands of American tourists to Britain, and it is clear that many of them are seeking something the do not posses in their own continent. This, I suggest, is a past: their own past forged by their own ancestors, and not the pre-Colombian past of the Indian, which is the only true ancient thing they have. They must travel all these hundreds of miles in order to find their roots, be they of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon or Norman descent.

As so much nonsense is talked about Britain’s ‘mixture of races’, it is worth quoting the words of Brian Branson in ‘The Lost Gods of England’. In his chapter ‘Who were the English?’ he mentions these ethnic groups, adding “But none of these inter-breedings was what might be called in genetic terms ‘a violent out-cross’ such as would have been the case if Britain had been successfully invaded by an armada of Chinese, or Red Indians or African Bushmen. Apart from any alteration in physical appearance that would have befallen the new Island Race under such circumstances, one has only to suppose a pagoda in Canterbury, a totem pole in Trafalgar Square, and rock paintings in the Cheddar Gorge to imagine the cultural changes that would have ensued.” He concludes that “the mongrelism of the English turns out to be more apparent than real.” That was first published in 1957, before the minarets of the mosque loomed over the trees in Regent’s Park.

Names are among the most ancient and lasting monuments in a culture, particularly those given to natural features in the landscape. In Britain they are usually Celtic, the Celts being the earliest of the above ethnic groups. The prefix ‘Pen’ for ‘head’ or ‘headland’ and the many instances of the name ‘Avon’, which means simply ‘river’ are two of the most obvious.

The names of our pubs are often far older than the buildings they adorn, and they tell us much. ‘The George’, and ‘The Green Man’, for instance, take us back to the traditional Mummers’ Play of St George and the Turkish knight, and to a character in the Morris Dance, ‘Jack in the Green’. The mummers would usually herald their appearance by announcing “Here come I”. . . and in all these traditions, including that of traditional dance and song which is inseparable from it, there are a number of folk-heroes who emerge: St George, Robin Hood and Maid Marion, King Arthur, Hereward the Wake, Dick Whittington, Dick Turpin, Nelson and Lord Collingwood. The villains (all of whom are often cut down by St George in the course of the mummers’ play) include: Prince Valentine, Captain Rover, Turkey Snipe, Little John, Bonaparte and Sambo. The last prompts me to remark that the blackening of faces (so upsetting to the susceptibilities of the liberal left of today), is probably far older than the ‘Black and White Minstrels’, or the minstrels who used to perform on seaside piers. There are accounts of wassailers or masqueraders blackening their faces, and the ‘Giant of Salisbury’ (a huge effigy , which used to be carried in all important processions in the city, which is now in the Salisbury and South Wiltshire museum) was found to have had his face blackened at some stage in the past, before he was ‘cleaned up’. ‘Morris’, of course, is thought to derive from ‘Moorish’ so, like the Mummers’ Play, it may date from the time of the Crusades.

After St George in the play has felled the Turkish knight, a doctor is called for, to ‘cure’ him. He is often played by a small boy dressed in a top hat and frock coat far too big for him and (in the version from Camborne, Cornwall) he says:

“I can cure the itch, the specs and the gout -
If there’s nine devils, I can kick ten out.”

He always cures the wounded knight so that the audience can then enjoy another bout of fighting but, in fact, his origins go back to the idea of death and resurrection which is the basis of most of the world’s religions.

READ MORE...

New Observer, “Orban: Hungary is a “Refuge for Europeans,” and Uses Tax Money to Boost Birthrate”, 24 July 2017:

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has announced that his nation will “remain a place where Western European Christians will always be able to find security”—and that his government is using taxes on multinational companies to fund social policies to spur families to have more children.

Speaking at a cultural festival in Baile Tusnad, Romania, Orbán also said that the European Union, together with Open Society founder—and Hungarian Jew—George Soros was seeking a “new, mixed, Muslimized Europe.”

He went on to say that Hungary’s border fences, supported by other Central European countries, “will block the EU-Soros effort to increase Muslim migration into Europe.”

While Hungary opposed taking in migrants “who could change the country’s cultural identity,” Orban said under his leadership, Hungary would remain a place where “Western European Christians will always be able to find security.”

He also said that Hungary’s opposition parties were no match for his government, and that he would win the next election in April 2018.

“In the upcoming campaign, first of all we have to confront external powers,” Orban said.

“We have to stand our ground against the Soros mafia network and the Brussels bureaucrats. And, during the next nine months, we will have to fight against the media they operate.”

Recent legislation in Hungary seeks to close or expel the Budapest-based Central European University, founded by Soros in 1991. There are also new rules about non-governmental organizations funded at least partly from abroad.

Orban reiterated his charge that Soros-funded NGOs want to weaken Hungary’s security with their advocacy for asylum-seekers and said Hungary had managed to stop the “migrant invasion” with razor-wire fences on its borders with Serbia and Croatia.

In the speech, broadcast by Hungarian state media, Orban repeated his claim that the EU leadership was encroaching on member states’ rights and trying to apply policies, such as increased immigration, which he said were opposed by most Europeans.

Orban said Poland, which is under pressure from the EU because of attempts to put its Supreme Court under political control, had replaced Hungary as the target of the EU’s “chief inquisitor,” whom he identified as European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans.

“The main target of the inquisition, the example of national governance to be weakened, destroyed and broken is Poland,” Orban said, vowing to defend the Polish government. “Hungary will use every legal possibility in the European Union to be in solidarity with the Poles.”

Finally, Orban said Hungary’s low birth rate made the country an “endangered species,” and that the government was using taxes on multinational companies to fund social policies that would spur families to have more children.