Majorityrights News > Category: Social liberalism

Zdravija Kotor Bay, Montenegro

Visigrad Post, “Will Montenegro build a fence at the Albanian border? Hungary is ready to help”, 22 May 2018:

Montenegro – Migratory crisis: Montenegro does not dismiss the possibility of building a fence at its border with Albania; and Hungary proposes to help.

As mentioned a few days ago, some groups of migrants have been spotted in Croatia while coming from Bosnia - the new transit country chosen by the migrants who want to reach Western Europe through the Balkans.

Currently, there are up to 60.000 migrants that Slovenia fears may arrive. With an electoral campaign at the moment in the country, there is risk of no political action being taken in regard to the migrants, such that they’d be bottled-up there if Austria would refuse their transit by way of the Slovenian border.

But it might happen that the migration route could be cut-off upstream if recent declarations of the Montenegrin authorities are to be trusted.

New Bosnian migratory route spotted..

Vojislav Dragovi, chief of the border police department at the ministry of Interior of Montenegro, declared on national TV that the erection of a border fence at the Albanian border was to be considered for the event that migratory pressure may increase on Montenegro. A pressure compounded as Albania does not seem disposed to accept the migrants back (using a pretext that there is no evidence that they have come from Albania) after they have arrived in Montenegro, despite bilateral agreements between Montenegro and Albania

However, Hungary has declared willing to provide Montenegro with 25 km of border fence for a border between Montenegro and Albania that has a length of 172 km.

It’s clear that (((Frame Games))), an (((interloper))) on White advocacy, is playing a (((frame game))) in which he is trying to say that Jewish abuse of “social sciences” (viz., against Whites) is an inherent problem of these disciplines (and the answer is right wing scientism against this social “left”) when in fact the problem is not inherent in these disciplines, the problem is inherent in the Jewish abuse of these disciplines. This disingenuous angle that he is taking in order to encourage right wing reaction and identity among Whites follows my hypothesis of what the YKW are trying to do - make “the left”, i.e. a proper sense of social unionization/organization of non Jewish groups, particularly Whites, against them, into “the problem”, the “enemy” - now that they have hegemony in the 8 power niches:

1) Money 2) Religion 3) Academia 4) Media (mutating into control of internet choke points and additional tech interactive control) 5) Business/international business 6) Politics 7) Law & Courts [* add NGO’s and perhaps military tech and cyberwarfare] adding: 8) Organized Crime.

That is, they don’t want you to do any of that lefty social organizing and unionizing now that they are on top; they don’t want you to realize that that lefty organizing of their group interests was largely how they attained hegemonic power - they want you to believe that lefty organizing is your problem; that they got to where they are through objective right wing merit, through pure objective science - lol.

Anti-Racism is anti-social classification (unionization being one form thereof, ehtno-nationalism another, and these forms can overlap), it is Cartesian, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

It blocks accountability to social historical capital and the social systemic patterns of human ecology.

Right wingers are usually reacting to a system - and people - that they don’t want to be a part of; often quite rightly so.

In the case of Jews, however, their right wing advocacy is motivated by not wanting You goyim to be a part of a coherent, unionized social system.

Nevertheless, Frame Games is assimilating some of the better talking points and concerns of White advocacy; and in his attempt to ingratiate himself to White right wing reaction, he is providing some insights that we can use; such as this horror:

Frame Games: (In the Jewish academic world he came into) “I was encouraged to put the threatening line of inquiry, my love of science and biology aside and to study law instead.

But one of the things that first shocked me on my red pill journey was a class in Constitutional Law. I thought I’d left biology behind…

Then we got to the section on the 1964 Civil Rights Act...

And how THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE has been re-interpreted away from equal to where any White over representation is considered prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.

A lot of people think of affirmative action being the exception to the equal protection clause…. if you only knew how deep it goes…

Are you guys familiar with “disparate impact”? .....a legal doctrine

“Disparate Impact is probably the most evil and disgusting piece of distoriionary nuclear fall-out in American jurisprudence.

What it says is that:

If there are racially neutral laws on the books or racially neutral practices at any corporation or government agency, if they have the effect of creating disparate impact on different groups - that is, if there are racial differences that emerge even where they are racially neutral by law, by practice, by custom, then it is presumed as prima facie evidence of racial discrimination and allows anybody to launch a civil rights law-suit against you with TREBLE -

A law suit against you with Treble damages - that means three times damages from whatever you suffered.

So, Disparate Impact means that no matter what you do, if you are a company, you are a solo practitioner, if you are a government agency, no matter what you do, if racial differences emerge you are liable unless you can prove, that is, the burden of proof is on you to show that you are PROACTIVELY DISCRIMINATING (for blacks/browns and against Whites, against Asians too, really, as they have to score 400 points higher than blacks on SAT’s to get the same university slots).

This is a common law doctrine.”

US National Security Adviser Bolton listens as US President Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at White House, April 9, 2018, in Washington. (AP/Evan Vucci)

The objective of the “Operation Clean Break” plan surreptitiously a.k.a., “Project for a New American Century”, is to ‘secure the realm around (greater) Israel by imposing Israeli controlled regime changes in the nations surrounding Israel - regime changes to be effected through the use of The United States Military: the first target for regime change was Iraq’s Saddam Hussein; Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was taken down in a most indignant way in 2011 (note: that ABC News video vilifies Gaddafi in subservience to ZOG); even “the Maidan uprising” debacle in Ukraine was probably a furtive part of this plan (Victoria Nuland, lead instigator of the Ukrainian/Russian war is the wife of Robert Kagan, who was one of the writers of The Operation Clean Break plan, along with Netanyahu, Perle, Wolfowitz et al; Cohencidentally, Jews were placed in power throughout the municipalities of Ukraine after “the Maidan uprising”). But most clearly now Operation Clean Break’s cross hairs are focused on Syria, Lebanon, and its major target - Iran.

When talking about regime change, it is important to note that Clean Break seeks regime change friendly to a greater Israel. A regime change in Iran which is non-Islamic if not secular would be preferable to ethnonationals throughout the world. But this was a process under way and a part of a safe, gradual plan for economic development and concomitant liberalization of Iran as a part of the international deal to control Iran’s nuclear program, viz, “JCPOA.”

Trump’s not so competent “cyber-czar”, the same one who handed Israeli Mossad The U.S. cyber-security choke point, thus consummating The U.S. as “ZOG” indeed, has leaked The Trump Administration’s role as an extended Zionist phenotype - “Leaked Doc Reveals White House Planning ‘Regime Change’ In Iran.”

“cyber-security czar” Giuliani and “National Security” Advisor, (((Bolton)))

Zero Hedge, “Leaked Doc Reveals White House Planning ‘Regime Change’ In Iran”, 10 May 2018:

It appears Rudy Giuliani wasn’t lying.

Just a few days after the former NYC mayor and latest member of President Trump’s unexpectedly let it slip that “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]”, the Washington Free Beacon has obtained a three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime.

The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including - who else - National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009, writes the Free Beacon, which obtained a leaked copy of the circulating plans.

The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House.

It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region. - Free Beacon

“The ordinary people of Iran are suffering under economic stagnation, while the regime ships its wealth abroad to fight its expansionist wars and to pad the bank accounts of the Mullahs and the IRGC command,” SSG writes in the paper. “This has provoked noteworthy protests across the country in recent months” it further claims as an argument to push a “regime change” policy.

For now - at least - overthrowing the Iran government, with its extensive and close ties to the Kremlin, is not official US policy; SSG president Jim Hanson told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration does not want to engage in direct military intervention in Iran - and is instead focusing on other methods of ridding Iran of its “hardline ruling regime.”

“The Trump administration has no desire to roll tanks in an effort to directly topple the Iranian regime,” Hanson said. “But they would be much happier dealing with a post-Mullah government. That is the most likely path to a nuclear weapons-free and less dangerous Iran.”

That will likely change, however.

One source close to the White House who has previewed the plan told the Free Beacon that the nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, solidified the Iranian regime’s grip on power and intentionally prevented the United States from fomenting regime change.

“The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic,” said the source, who would only speak to the Free Beacon on background about the sensitive issue. “Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. It’s now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo’s job to put this consensus back in place.”

The source tells the Beacon that Bolton is “acutely aware of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the region.”

“John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you’re never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone,” the source said, adding that “nothing’s off the table right now if Israel is attacked.”

That said, Bolton is confident that an Iranian regime change will occur in the next six months:

Battle Beagle @HarmlessYardDog
Replying to @ HarmlessYardDog

John Bolton - We Will Be Celebrating in Tehran Before 2019

>You can’t say you weren’t warned
10:20 PM - May 7, 2018

A second source tells The Beacon that the Trump administration recognizes that the “chief impediment to the region is Iran’s tyrannical regime.”

“The problem is not the Iran nuclear deal it’s the Iranian regime,” said the source. “Team Bolton has spent years creating Plans B, C, and D for dealing with that problem. President Trump hired him knowing all of that. The administration will now start aggressively moving to deal with the root cause of chaos and violence in the region in a clear-eyed way.”

Regional sources who have spoken to SSG “tell us that Iranian social media is more outraged about internal oppression, such as the recent restrictions on Telegram, than about supporting or opposing the nuclear program. Iranian regime oppression of its ethnic and religious minorities has created the conditions for an effective campaign designed to splinter the Iranian state into component parts,” the group states. -Free Beacon

“More than one third of Iran’s population is minority groups, many of whom already seek independence,” the paper explains. “U.S. support for these independence movements, both overt and covert, could force the regime to focus attention on them and limit its ability to conduct other malign activities.”

Without a regime change, the United States will continue face threats from Iranian forces stationed throughout the region, including in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon.

“The probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program willingly or even under significant pressure is low,” the plan states. “Absent a change in government within Iran, America will face a choice between accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or acting to destroy as much of this capability as possible.”

That said, President Trump made clear earlier in the week that US officials must make efforts to differentiate between the people of Iran and its ruling regime.

“Any public discussion of these options, and any messaging about the Iranian regime in general, should make a bright line distinction between the theocratic regime along with its organs of oppression and the general populace,” according to the plan. “We must constantly reinforce our support for removing the iron sandal from the necks of the people to allow them the freedom they deserve.”

READ MORE...

“Why Amber Rudd Quit”

ITVNews, 29 April 2018:

Rudd has chosen to resign because she felt she could not defend herself against the charge that she took her eye off the immigration ball.

Her excuse, to herself, was that her priority - for obvious reasons - was combating terrorism and improving domestic security.

But of course all ministers are supposed to multi-task, and she knew that excuse would not fly in public.

So she decided to stand down this afternoon, even before the Guardian published a leaked letter from her to the PM from January 2017 - which seemingly showed that far from being unaware there are targets for the expulsion of illegal immigrants, she actually set such a target.

  Letters exchanged between Amber Rudd and Theresa May

  Amber Rudd’s resignation letter to Theresa May

Amber Rudd signs off her letter say she will continue to work for her constituents of Hastings and Rye.

  Theresa May’s response to Amber Rudd’s resignation

Theresa May told Amber Rudd she should be proud of the way she led the Home Office.

My sources tell me that there were other such official papers about targets knocking around. And therefore she decided to quit - because she felt that MPs would simply never give her the benefit of the doubt.

Potential replacements: Hunt, Gove & Javid.

In a way she has been hung out to dry by her own department.

It is extraordinary that her officials told her, before that fateful select committee hearing last week, that there were no targets for the removal of illegal immigrants.

And perhaps less extraordinary is that other officials leaked and briefed against her - since much of Whitehall is detached from ministers.

For the avoidance of doubt, she jumped: “I am told there was no pressure from the PM.”

The point is that Rudd’s exit is arguably the most serious resignation May has suffered in her almost two years as PM. For one thing the Home Secretary is one of the great offices of state.

More damagingly for May, the policy which underlay Rudd’s doom - the hostile environment for immigration which has caused so much unpleasantness for the Windrush migrants - was May’s not Rudd’s.

In other words, Rudd’s departure strips May of her human shield.

Last updated Mon 30 Apr 2018

Mortifying:

With cheerful taken-for-grantedness of the ‘unassailable’ virtue of their motives, this panel at CFR discusses the prospect of “democratization” of “illiberal democracies” by having them accept non-White migrants and integration; i.e., cheerful acceptance of the destruction of our European genome. Primarily with the targeted “problem” of Eastern European countries Not accepting immigrants.

Published on Apr 23, 2018 by Council on Foreign Relations -

Speakers discuss the growing trend toward populism around the world and the current global state of democracy.

Speakers
Michael Abramowitz

President, Freedom House; Former White House Correspondent, Washington Post

Nicole M. Bibbins Sedaca

Chair, Global Politics and Security Concentration and Professor in the Practice of International Affairs, Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown U; Former Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, US Department of State

Timothy Snyder

Richard C. Levin Professor of History, Yale University; Author, The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America

Presider
Kati I. Marton

Author and Human Rights Activist

Kati I. Marton (15:56): We haven’t yet mentioned one of the most powerful motives for the rise of populism, which is the fear of refugees - migrants.  Most graphically on display in Hungary where you can’t go a block without seeing a billboard showing George Soros’s smiling face, and the headline over that face is, ‘don’t let him have the last laugh.’

Six months ago George Soros was known to a very small handful of Budapest literati. Now he is probably the second best known person in Hungary after Victor Orban. And this manipulation of the fear of migrants, of which by the way, there are virtually none in Hungary and very few in Poland, as opposed to over a million in Germany, where this problem doesn’t exist…is something that uh, that we haven’t really dealt with sufficiently.

We seem to step-by-step, accept that his is the way of the world now. I frequently ask myself what didn’t my Hungarian grandparents, whose lives didn’t end well, what didn’t they do in the 30’s? that we should be doing today? Rather than sleepwalking thought this rather dangerous passage.

So, the migration problem and how it relates to the rise of populism - AdF (eg) is entirely about fear of outsiders.

When an audience member suggest the problem of Eastern European countries having a bad track record with regard to democracy, Snyder draws comparisons -

Snyder: (36:00): When the Supreme Court decides in 2013 that racism is no longer a problem, twenty two states then pass voter suppression laws - that’s not democratization, whatever you think of the legality of it.

...its been very hard for the West European countries to extend democracy over second class citizens (empire/subject relation)...asking about the things that make democracy possible….which for me precisely have to do with integration - the European Union, whatever its chances are, is the hope for democracy.

Kati I. Marton (38:00) ...these countries are not destined to be undemocratic, there are a whole bunch of other factors and one of them, frankly, is the luck of leaders (Merkel!)

NPR, “An Anti-Immigration Speech Divided Britain 50 Years Ago. It Still Echoes Today”, 20 April 2018:

Heard on Morning Edition

Britain’s Conservative Party politician Enoch Powell, right, listens to two demonstrators in Canada in April 1968, reading a petition that describes him as a “racist.“AP

The woman who never was? Dr Burgess said, “boiling down the 200 names that we arrived at and managed to find one individual who matches most of the essential points in the letter. And I can actually put a name to the face by saying that she was Drucilla Cotterill.” Just like the pensioner Powell quoted, Drucilla Cotterill owned her own home, lost her husband in the Second World War and stopped letting out her rooms to lodgers when immigration increased. Other former residents of the street, which is now Brighton Mews, have confirmed to Document that excrement was pushed through a letterbox in this street and that nearly all those living here were black in the late 1960s.

Mr Powell said the woman lived in his Wolverhampton constituency. By 1968 it was almost entirely populated by immigrant families, except for a 61-year-old white woman living at number 4.

How we got here: Millennial Woes goes over the history of Powell’s speech from a native nationalist position.

Related: London Street Scenes 1967

Related: BBC, “The woman who never was?”, 22 Jan 2007

Ibid. In April 1968, the United States was grieving. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a white nationalist. Cities burned with riots.

Across the Atlantic, Britain was debating the Race Relations Act, which made it illegal to deny a person employment, housing or public services based on race or national origin.

The law was intended to protect immigrants from Commonwealth nations, especially former colonies in the Caribbean, India and Pakistan. The first of these immigrants, 492 Jamaicans, had arrived 20 years earlier. Hundreds of thousands followed.

“The immigrants were called over,” says Sathnam Sanghera, an author whose Sikh parents emigrated from India during that time. “There was a labor shortage. There weren’t enough people to run the factories after the war.” Sathnam Sanghera’s Sikh parents emigrated from India. “There came the idea that white people would be crushed by the rights that black and Asian people demanded,” he says.

The immigrants were granted British citizenship and helped rebuild Britain after World War II. But they faced racism. Landlords wouldn’t rent to them. Some employers turned them away.

Tarsem Singh Sandhu, then a 23-year-old bus driver, lost his job when he refused to remove the turban he wore as part of his Sikh religion.

The Race Relations Act was intended to protect immigrants like him.

“But there came the idea that white people would be crushed by the rights that black and Asian people demanded,” Sanghera recalls.

The tension was especially obvious in Sanghera’s hometown, Wolverhampton, in England’s West Midlands, which he calls “one of the first cities in Britain to experience mass immigration.”

“A match onto gunpowder”

Enoch Powell, who represented Wolverhampton in Parliament, feared a race war coming because of mass immigration.

On April 20, 1968, he took the stage at a Conservative Party event at the Midlands Hotel in Birmingham and gave an incendiary speech that would come to define him — and divide his country.

Even now, 50 years later, there was outcry in the U.K. when BBC Radio 4 decided to broadcast an actor’s reading of the speech last weekend.

In the speech, Powell warned, “That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic ... is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.”

He attacked the bill that outlawed discrimination. He said it was whites who were facing deprivation and that Britain “must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting” large numbers of immigrants to enter.

“The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming,” he said. “This is why to enact legislation of the kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match onto gunpowder.”

Smithfield meat porters march to Parliament to hand in a petition backing British politician Enoch Powell, on April 25, 1968, five days after Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech.

He quoted a constituent — “a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized industries” — who was encouraging his children to leave England.

“In this country,” Powell quoted the man as saying, “in 15 or 20 years, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

“I can already hear the chorus of execration,” Powell continued. “How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? My answer is that I do not have the right not to do so.”

Powell said inviting mass immigration was akin to “watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

An “evil speech” with repercussions

A classics scholar, Powell also quoted Virgil’s Aeneid. “As I look ahead,” he said, “I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’ “

Powell’s address became known as the “Rivers of Blood” speech.

The Times of London immediately labeled it an “evil speech.” Conservative Party leader Edward Heath dismissed Powell from the party leadership.

“I consider the speech he made in Birmingham yesterday to have been racialist in tone and liable to exacerbate racial tensions,” Heath said.

But polls showed a majority of Britons supported Powell. Many protested, saying, “Enoch was right.” The speech emboldened racists.

READ MORE...

New Observer, “Jews Force 11,000 Pro-Israel Changes to US School Textbooks”, 16 April 2018:

The Jewish lobby in America has forced through more than 11,000 changes to US school textbooks issued by National Geographic, Prentice Hall, Five Ponds Press, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and McGraw-Hill over the past several years, it has emerged.

According to a press release issued by the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) and posted at the Israel Lobby Archive, the latest changes were revealed in a set of changes demanded by the Jews in textbooks and teaching guides used in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Requested changes include:

– Deletion of references to Israel “occupying” territories captured during the 1967 Six-Day War and substituting “controlled.” International conventions clearly outline the responsibility of occupying powers and the illegality of collective punishment and population transfers.

– Changes to maps to recognize Israel’s declared “annexation” of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The U.S. and most other countries do not officially recognize Israeli annexation of either territory.

– Substitution of references to “occupied territories” to “captured areas.”

–  Substitution of references to “Jewish settlers” and “settlements” with “building of homes and communities.”

– Deletion of a lesson reviewing a video documentary by Iranian-American religious studies scholar, author, producer and television host Reza Aslan.

– Deletion of an activity based on reading the biography and work of Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi.

– Substitution of an editorial cartoon titled “The Mideast Peace Game Rules” with a cartoon of an Arab suicide terrorist holding a “Road Map to Peace” game hostage.

California-based Institute for Curriculum Services (ICS) proposed changes were submitted to the Virginia Department of Education on February 28 on behalf of the Jewish Community Federation of Richmond, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, the Jewish Community Relations Committee (JCRC) of Richmond, and the JCRC of Tidewater.

In a January webcast on YouTube, ICS chief Aliza Craimer Elias claimed that “working behind the scenes” through state advocacy organizations ICS had successfully made more than 11,000 changes to U.S. textbooks.

Publishers of the textbooks targeted for changes include National Geographic, Prentice Hall, Five Ponds Press, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and McGraw-Hill.

Common themes in ICS requests to make changes to Virginia textbooks.

1. Qualify claims of Islam as “expressing Muslim religious belief” while referencing those of Judaism as “God’s covenant.”

2. Replace Christian versions of key texts (such as the Ten Commandments) with Judaic versions.

3. Emphasize the “Jewish ethnicity”“ of major American historical figures.

4. Eliminate terms such as “settlers,” “occupation,” “land theft” and “wall” or replace with more neutral terms such as “disputed,” “captured areas,” “security fence” and “controlled.”

5. Emphasize Arab culpability for crisis initiation (Israel’s 1948 War of Independence) leading to military action, but not Israeli culpability (e.g. surprise Israeli airstrikes on Egypt commencing the 1967 Six-Day War).

6. Discourage students from conducting open internet research on current events lest they run into controversial content. Instead recommend approved websites such as the ADL and the JewishVirtualLibrary.org

7. Eliminate or replace historical artwork created for predominately Christian audiences.

8. Add content that augments Israeli claims to occupied territory in the Middle East, such as changing maps of the Golan Heights as belonging to Israel rather than Syria.

9. Reference Israeli claims such as “Israel annexed East Jerusalem” as settled fact, without referencing lack of official recognition by other nation states.

10. Delete all references to “Palestinian Territories.”

11.Where ICS has already successfully lobbied for changes in national editions of textbooks, it demands that these changes also be made to State of Virginia editions.

Trump took over Republican party on behalf of the Jewish Right in tandem with disingenuous, deracinating, oligarchic, objectivist, propositional Right…through its kosher, paleocon safety net/valve, false opposition, (((the Alt-Right))).

After Trump committed what was to Republican insiders the great sin of saying “there were good and bad on all sides” at the Unite the Right rally…

(((Corey Lewandowski))): “He has to fight back. So when you accuse him of being a racist he doesn’t want to back up, he wants to double down to prove to you that that’s not true, and that’s what the President is.”

Trump: “What about the ‘Alt-Left?” Not to be confused with what we define as White Left, nor the Jewy, fraud “Alt-Left” that also goes by that name; Trump was certainly not addressing that anyway, but rather a trendy way of addressing the motley “left” as it is commonly known - the pivotal move - to redirect attention and blame to “the Left”  - in orchestration of the White Right through the “Unite the Right” rally.

In addition to Mnuchin using “Unite The Right” to offend Gary Cohn through it and Trump’s neutral response, to get Cohn out of the way, there were key Republican insiders that needed ingratiation for the Jewish Right to be able to take-over and join forces with the (deracinating) American right through front man Trump.

Following Trump’s first political victory on their behalf, the passing of the tax-cut bill:

Paul Ryan heaps saccharine, about face praise of Trump for making the rich, richer…

As Mitch McConnell has been kissing black ass since the days of “civil rights” when he marched with M.L. King, Trump had to be sure to burnish his pro-black credentials for him (note Uncle Tom/ Satchmo Step n’ Fetch-it type to Trump’s right).

Mitch McConnell: “You’ve made the case for the tax-bill (so that the rich could get richer and the poor, poorer - typical Repugs). We’ve cemented the Supreme Court to the right of center for a generation (pro-black women having babies). You’ve ended the over regulation of the American economy (pro-pollution). Thank you Mr. President, for all you’re doing.”

(((Corey Lewandowski))): “In essence this became Trump’s Republican party.

The testimony that people gave there is hard to take back”

- Oren Hatch, for example: “You’re one heck of a leader…and we’re going to make this the greatest Presidency that we’ve seen, not only in generations, but maybe ever.”

(((Corey Lewandowski))): “What the Republican establishment now know, is that Donald Trump is unequivocally the leader of the Republican party” (The Jewish Right-wing has taken over from Jewish liberals).

“He’ is the one who sets the tone of what takes place in Washington. He is the leader of our country - both politically and from a legislative side of things. I think they’ve learned that over the last year.”

Related Story: Unite the Right Charlottesville: successful neocon/liberal operation forces wedge against paleo-Cohn